Posted on 01/01/2012 3:02:56 PM PST by rzman21
rzman....as in other threads I choose to not repond to your accusations...you know nothing about the faith I practice, or others for that matter... and at best can only assume by posting anything which your mind might conceive.
So be kind enough not to address me to others as you have done here...they are quite capable of making any determination they might without your twisted imput.
I know quite a bit about Protestant theology, so I will address what I like with or without your permission.
I never pinged you.
Ignorance and hate know no bounds.
I am, mitch. I’m just pointing out that when the same “fat guy” pic was posted at an orthodox user, no one complained from the quixotic supporters...
“I don’t think posting about the Sacraments is “fomenting dissension”. In any case, we’ve certainly seen a lot worse from long time posters here.”
I was posting about the entire history of the n00b you are referring to above. You are welcome to think whatever you prefer, as I will too.
You didnt answer the question, that is, where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is ones sole source. Maybe there is no verse in all of Scripture where it says that Scripture is ones sole source.
Well, we could start here to get an idea.
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Obviously the “noble” thing to do is check with scripture on even things Paul and Silas were teaching. Then we have the example of Jesus. How many times did Jesus say “it is written” to back up what He was saying? If even Jesus and Paul want what they are saying backed up by scripture you can count on the fact that I’m going to check with scripture to see what some guy in a pointy hat is teaching.
Think what you will, but it is a fact that this 'n00b' has a long way to go to come close to the dissension fomenting of some longtimers on here.
i should take advice from someone who claims what St Paul said was from Satan, WHY???
the Kingdom of God’s Son can be found wherever Jesus is reigning. currently that is in heaven and on earth in His Body, the Church.
Jesus brought the Kingdom to fruition by conquering death and atoning for the sins of the world at the Cross.
Christians have believed this for 2,000 years and received the teaching from the Apostles.
There was no book, only the 12 men Jesus left, with Peter, the rock, as the one on whom Jesus built His Church. THEY, the Apostles, and Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the 27 documents in the New Testament.
The Magesterium, the synod of Bishops and the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, decided, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, on WHICH documents were to make up the New Testament. That happened in 380, 400 and 420 A.D. That Council of the Magesterium was called by the POPE.
So it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to use the Scripture as the sole source, since it was the group of men who wrote the documents, thus verifying APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the Magesterium which decided on which documents to MAKE UP that New Testament, which further adds to the APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
Protestants, de facto accepted the decisions of the Magesterium, hundreds of years AFTER Jesus rose from the dead.
So, you must, by logic, believe in the APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the MAGESTERIUM as being sources, beyond the Bible.
Nowhere does it say in the New Testament that those 27 documents were the SOLE SOURCE, otherwise, the Apostles, and Paul, would have WRITTEN it so.
They would never have said so because it would have negated their own Apostolic Tradition.
The Magesterium would have never said so because it would have negated its own authority.
The Pope, who called that council to decide on which documents were to be authenic words for the New Testament would have negated his own authority-which would have been disobedient to Jesus' given authority to Peter at Caesare Philippi.
Believe what the RCC tells you if you wish but I will believe what God through scripture says
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
The misinterpretation of one verse does not abbrogate what the rest of scripture says.
>> The Magesterium, the synod of Bishops and the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, decided, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, on WHICH documents were to make up the New Testament. That happened in 380, 400 and 420 A.D. That Council of the Magesterium was called by the POPE.<<
Might I remind you that it was only two generations after God saved just one individual and his family through the distruction of the entire earths population in Noah that the example of the worst evil was exemplified in Noah’s great grandson Nimrod? Paul commended the Bereans for not even trusting his spoken words but “searched the scriptures daily to see if these things be true”. The preservation of God’s word was not to the credit of the CC but to God Himself. It is not always the faithful who God uses for His purposes.
>> So, you must, by logic, believe in the APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the MAGESTERIUM as being sources, beyond the Bible.<<
Complete nonsense. I can “search the scriptures” and know that the RCC has fallen far from what Jesus and the apostles taught.
English from Hebrew (Masoretic)
tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar
Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18
But I do wonder if people in their zeal to make sure others recognize that Peter is first called "rock" have forgotten that "The Rock" is a Name of God.
What's more, you accepted the Apostolic Tradition and Magesterium TWO other times, as follows, chronologically:
1. Council of Jerusalem, called by Peter, in 49 A.D. to define what the Gentiles had to do to become Christians. The Jews, who were the Bishops before 70 A.D. wanted the Gentiles to become Jewish and embrace the entire Mosaic law. The Gentiles did not want to do that. Paul was their voice. So the MAGESTERIUM, all the bishops at the time and Peter, the Bishop of Rome and POPE, met in Jerusalem. Paul convinced Peter and Peter convinced the rest of the Magesterium. The Gentiles needed to do only three things to become Christian. Thus the work of the Apostolic Tradition and the Magesterium.
Look it up, if you don't believe me. It's simple history.
2. The Council of Nicea, called by the Pope, brought together the Magisterium again, to combat the heresy Aryianism. The outcome was the Nicene Creed.
So the Magesterium, called those THREE times by the POPE, successor of Peter, first bishop of Rome, decided:
What you needed to be a Christian,
What the tenets of your faith were, and
Which 27 documents (There were hundreds of documents circulating around the early Church and the Magesterium had to authenticate those documents that were valid.) were to be the New Testament.
And you say it's baloney. Okay. That's enough from you. God help you. The Catholic Church gathered together the Scripture of the New Testament and not until 420 A.D. That also is just simple history. Before THAT it was APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the MAGESTERIUM. They PRECEDE the BOOK we know as the New Testament.
But, DON'T believe history, according to the world view of EVEN well read Protestants, believe your own world view according to you. You're dead wrong but then I have the world behind me and your have your own misinterpretation.
Already did.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Who was it again who said My sentence is?
Don’t give me that crap from the CC that Peter was the leader. If he was it would have been him who made the final decision.
>> Council of Jerusalem, called by Peter<<
How about we read scripture before we believe that RCC lie?
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they (Who? certain men) determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them (Who? Some of the certain men), should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
It was not Peter who called the meeting. It was the “certain men who decided they should go to Jerusalem to meet with all the apostles to decide. Peter spoke at that meeting as did Barnabas and Paul, it was then that the leader of the group, James made the decision and said wherefore my sentence is. There is no way anyone could conclude from that passage that Peter was in a leadership position in any way. It’s another lie from the RCC.
The entire basis of the hierarchy of the RCC is built on a lie. As a matter of fact they cannot prove that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome let alone the first Pope. Paul wrote to the Romans and never once mentioned Peter being there. No one did. He was NOT the leadership in Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.