We have yet another Catholic that needs to be educated on the HISTORICAL FACTS.
Er... may I gently point out that the Jews didn't (and don't) recognize St. Paul's letters, or the Gospels, or any of the New Testament, as Scripture either?
I was talking about what the JEWS accepted as Scripture. The Old Testament. That would have been self-evident. The Protestant Bible accepts as Scripture all that the Jews accept as Scripture and since the Jews did not accept the apocrypha as Scripture, the Protestant Bible doesn't contain it.
But, FWIW, the Jews DID accept the writings of other Jews as NT Scripture. Peter (a Jew) called the writings of Paul (a Jew) "Scripture". So that argument falls flat.
The WHOLE, ENTIRE truth, perhaps (e.g. the missing books of the Protestant Bible, Sacred Tradition, the teaching of the Church Magisterium, infallible interpretation of the Scriptures in question). "2 + 2 = 4" is truth, but is not ALL truth (and not even all *mathematical* truth). Do you see?
And how do you verify that the *sacred tradition* has been passed down faithfully? We can see on another thread that forgeries were used as part of that tradition thus proving that what is called *sacred tradition* cannot be depended on.
It's a bit disingenuous and rash for you to suggest that "not even the Bible will convince an unbeliever"!
No, it isn't.
Scripture backs that one up.
Luke 16:19-31 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.
The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’
But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’
And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
People believe Scripture and believe that Scripture is truth and all the truth that they need because they want to.
People who don't want to will NEVER be convinced, because they don't want to be. They want to believe that there is truth to be found somewhere else relating to God. That is saying that the word of God, inspired and breathed out by the Holy Spirit, is not sufficient. Kind of like people who say that the death of Christ is not sufficient, but is lacking so we have to fill it up.
What a slap in the face of God.
metmom... with all due respect, you’re lapsing (rather quickly) from sane reason into (forgive me) hyperventilating rhetoric. My point was that ANYONE, with as little logical basis as you’ve done here, can say virtually the same thing. It’s easy to start name-calling, and accuse your opponent of “not being Spirit-filled”, “not having saving faith”, “being blinded by arrogance, greed, mindless allegiance to Rome [or whatever], etc.”... and that’s all fluff (and sometimes rather rude and insulting fluff, depending on who’s saying it, and how—FWIW, you were NOT rude, by the way!).
Here are two of my key points:
1) Scripture does not (at any point) insist that it ALONE is the sole guide to faith, or the sole source of relevation, or anything of the sort. It doesn’t take faith (or a lack of faith) to see that, any more than it takes faith to see if I’ve ever used the word “onychophagy” in my posts before now. (Hint: I didn’t.) It’s a simple matter fo reading and comprehension (and a bit of knowledge of Greek... though an interlinear Greek Bible would do).
2) Saying that your opponent “will never get it, no matter what” (implying that I, and other Catholics, are exactly like the rich man in Luke 16—is there any chance you see how [unintentionally] arrogant that statement is?) is a fallacy known as “special pleading”; it implies that you have some sort of “secret knowledge” by which one can know the “enlightened” by finding those who happen to agree with you! I could just as easily say that your hidebound and stubborn desire to cling to Luther and his man-made traditions has blinded you to the plain sense of the Scriptures you seek to hold alone... and that, until you have a change of heart, you’ll never be able to grasp the truth.
How would you feel, if I said that? I have at least as much basis (i.e. not much) for saying that as you had for saying what you said.
No... if you have a point to make, you’ll need to defend it as I do (and as all reasonable people do): with sound reason and logic, and not with mere appeals to passion, emotion, and popularity.