Total Posts:1,516|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ask a Catholic

dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 2:01:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is the official opinion of the Catholic Church regarding the Eastern Orthodox churches? And what is the general opinion?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 2:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Church has many things it says concerning the Eastern Orthodox. I would say that the view is summed up like this: The Orthodox church is a true Church. They have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. Pope John Paul II said that being separated from our Orthodox brethren was like trying to breathe with only one lung, and he prayed for the reunification of the two halves of the one Church.

At 5/26/2014 2:01:50 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
What is the official opinion of the Catholic Church regarding the Eastern Orthodox churches? And what is the general opinion?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 2:55:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 2:28:28 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
The Church has many things it says concerning the Eastern Orthodox. I would say that the view is summed up like this: The Orthodox church is a true Church. They have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. Pope John Paul II said that being separated from our Orthodox brethren was like trying to breathe with only one lung, and he prayed for the reunification of the two halves of the one Church.





At 5/26/2014 2:01:50 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
What is the official opinion of the Catholic Church regarding the Eastern Orthodox churches? And what is the general opinion?

Thank you for your answer :)

How can it be a "true" church if it disagrees with the Catholic church on a number of issues, some of which are important (like Purgatory)?

Are there any other churches that the Catholic church would consider true?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Who was Pope in 1409?

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 9:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As I said, it has a valid priesthood, valid sacraments, and has maintained apostolic succession. That's what a true Church is found to have. As for the doctrine of purgatory, I wouldn't say that all Orthodox traditions deny it. I have seen writings by some members who believe in some kind of spirit prison.

I am not aware of any other communities of Christians that the Catholic Church considers an actual Church.

Thank you for your answer :)

How can it be a "true" church if it disagrees with the Catholic church on a number of issues, some of which are important (like Purgatory)?

Are there any other churches that the Catholic church would consider true?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 10:42:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

It's mildly relevant to note that the office is neither sacerdotal nor sacramental.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 10:54:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was raised a Catholic (now I'm not) and I just got through with a debate which involved me reading a lot of Vatican II and the Eastern Church is not a "true" church! The Catholic Church is the one true church. All others are separated from a perfect communion (although they may be endowed with the Holy Spirit as Christians) with Jesus because they have abandoned the one true church. They can, however, find salvation through the Catholic Church. And they do have valid sacraments and such. But they are not a "true" church.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 11:45:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When I said "true" Church, I was using it in a different way than you seem to be. My point is that the Catholic Church agrees with the Orthodox when they say their community is a church. The same cannot be said about protestant communities. The Catholic Church denies that those communities are churches.

At 5/26/2014 10:54:20 PM, numberwang wrote:
I was raised a Catholic (now I'm not) and I just got through with a debate which involved me reading a lot of Vatican II and the Eastern Church is not a "true" church! The Catholic Church is the one true church. All others are separated from a perfect communion (although they may be endowed with the Holy Spirit as Christians) with Jesus because they have abandoned the one true church. They can, however, find salvation through the Catholic Church. And they do have valid sacraments and such. But they are not a "true" church.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any other questions?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"
3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.

I am not familiar with any.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 7:20:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 11:53:11 PM, Composer wrote:
The pope is the sub-agent of Satan (Mark 8:33) hence catholics in general & their priests are sub-agents of Satan = Demons!


I'm curious; are you saying that Peter is in Hell?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 10:35:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.


I am not familiar with any.

Nor am I. It is a gross assumption to state that the Hebrew scriptures "became" scriptures only because the "Hebrew church" (as you call it) said they were. It is also of note that, in your case, your only authority for the creation narrative is ... a bunch of Jews.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 11:19:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 7:20:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:53:11 PM, Composer wrote:
The pope is the sub-agent of Satan (Mark 8:33) hence catholics in general & their priests are sub-agents of Satan = Demons!


I'm curious; are you saying that Peter is in Hell?
This Peter is a Story book character & Historical Myth!

Accordingly the catholic popeys are sub-agents of Satan a.k.a. Peter (Mark 8:33)
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 5:59:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 10:35:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.


I am not familiar with any.

Nor am I. It is a gross assumption to state that the Hebrew scriptures "became" scriptures only because the "Hebrew church" (as you call it) said they were. It is also of note that, in your case, your only authority for the creation narrative is ... a bunch of Jews.

With all due respect, your "what passage" argument is irrelevant since the Jewish people never claimed their authority solely from scripture. Secondly, what other authority is possible for the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures (in your opinion)? And I never said the phrase, "a bunch of Jews". Let's not be flippant.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 6:02:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 11:19:36 PM, Composer wrote:
At 6/6/2014 7:20:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:53:11 PM, Composer wrote:
The pope is the sub-agent of Satan (Mark 8:33) hence catholics in general & their priests are sub-agents of Satan = Demons!


I'm curious; are you saying that Peter is in Hell?
This Peter is a Story book character & Historical Myth!

Accordingly the catholic popeys are sub-agents of Satan a.k.a. Peter (Mark 8:33)

Well since we know where he Is buried, saying Peter was a myth is silly. And since Peter is in Heaven, he certainly isn't an "agent of Satan".
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 6:28:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/7/2014 5:59:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 10:35:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.


I am not familiar with any.

Nor am I. It is a gross assumption to state that the Hebrew scriptures "became" scriptures only because the "Hebrew church" (as you call it) said they were. It is also of note that, in your case, your only authority for the creation narrative is ... a bunch of Jews.

With all due respect, your "what passage" argument is irrelevant since the Jewish people never claimed their authority solely from scripture. Secondly, what other authority is possible for the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures (in your opinion)? And I never said the phrase, "a bunch of Jews". Let's not be flippant.

From whence did they claim authority, if not solely from the OT scriptures?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 6:46:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/7/2014 6:28:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/7/2014 5:59:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 10:35:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.


I am not familiar with any.

Nor am I. It is a gross assumption to state that the Hebrew scriptures "became" scriptures only because the "Hebrew church" (as you call it) said they were. It is also of note that, in your case, your only authority for the creation narrative is ... a bunch of Jews.

With all due respect, your "what passage" argument is irrelevant since the Jewish people never claimed their authority solely from scripture. Secondly, what other authority is possible for the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures (in your opinion)? And I never said the phrase, "a bunch of Jews". Let's not be flippant.

From whence did they claim authority, if not solely from the OT scriptures?
From their Oral Tradition.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 5:27:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/7/2014 6:46:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/7/2014 6:28:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/7/2014 5:59:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 10:35:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.


I am not familiar with any.

Nor am I. It is a gross assumption to state that the Hebrew scriptures "became" scriptures only because the "Hebrew church" (as you call it) said they were. It is also of note that, in your case, your only authority for the creation narrative is ... a bunch of Jews.

With all due respect, your "what passage" argument is irrelevant since the Jewish people never claimed their authority solely from scripture. Secondly, what other authority is possible for the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures (in your opinion)? And I never said the phrase, "a bunch of Jews". Let's not be flippant.

From whence did they claim authority, if not solely from the OT scriptures?
From their Oral Tradition.

Alright, can you verify us something that an Israelite believed in, say, 1000 BC that was not found in the Holy Scriptures, i. e. something necessary to salvation that was not written down, but just passed down by mouth?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 10:56:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/7/2014 5:27:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/7/2014 6:46:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/7/2014 6:28:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/7/2014 5:59:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 10:35:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.


I am not familiar with any.

Nor am I. It is a gross assumption to state that the Hebrew scriptures "became" scriptures only because the "Hebrew church" (as you call it) said they were. It is also of note that, in your case, your only authority for the creation narrative is ... a bunch of Jews.

With all due respect, your "what passage" argument is irrelevant since the Jewish people never claimed their authority solely from scripture. Secondly, what other authority is possible for the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures (in your opinion)? And I never said the phrase, "a bunch of Jews". Let's not be flippant.

From whence did they claim authority, if not solely from the OT scriptures?
From their Oral Tradition.

Alright, can you verify us something that an Israelite believed in, say, 1000 BC that was not found in the Holy Scriptures, i. e. something necessary to salvation that was not written down, but just passed down by mouth?

All the teachings that were eventually written down in what became known as the Talmud. Google "Oral Torah" for more information.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 4:04:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/7/2014 10:56:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/7/2014 5:27:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/7/2014 6:46:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/7/2014 6:28:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/7/2014 5:59:19 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 10:35:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:01:34 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:57:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:00:06 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 1:59:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:37:04 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:54:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/26/2014 10:13:22 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:00:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/26/2014 1:37:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Ever wonder why Catholics believe what we believe? I would be happy to help! And if I don't immediately know the answer, I know where to find it. :)

If, "This is my body" means the bread ceased to be bread and became the body of Jesus, why doesn't, "I am the bread of life" mean Jesus ceased to be flesh and blood and became a loaf of bread?

answer: Because Jesus didn't intend for it to mean that.

He didn't intend for "this is my body" to mean that the bread literally turned into his body, either.

Response: I would assert that the practice of the early Church show otherwise. If Jesus didn't mean that, history wouldn't record how the the Christians of apostolic Times believed it was the literal body and blood of Christ.

History records both a literal and figurative interpretation.

Response: I would agree. The Eucharist does have aspects of it that are figurative, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's literally His body and blood. That was the belief of the first Christians, and was universally accepted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.


If the Catholic Church is necessary to tell us what scripture is, how do we know the Catholic Church has this authority apart from scripture, or if you appeal to scripture to prove the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is scripture, how do you avoid circular reasoning?

Answer: Apostolic Tradition.

He asked, "How do you avoid circular reasoning?" In other words, most claim that the Roman Catholic Church is vested with the sole authority to interpret scripture because the scriptures teach that the Roman Catholic church has the sole authority to interpret scripture. In order to discovery what "apostolic tradition" means, we'll have to ask you.


Response: I answered him. Apostolic Tradition. The very fact that we don't go by the Bible alone allows us to avoid circular reasoning.

What is the earliest evidence for the office of Cardinal?

Answer: From what I can tell, It originated in the 5th century.

Is the office of "cardinal" derived from apostolic tradition?

Response: It was born out of tradition (small t).

When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra, what did he say, and how do you know he was speaking ex cathedra?

Answer: Whenever he speaks officially as the head of the universal church on the issues of faith or morals. He uses words to that affect.

1. What is the difference between "speaking" and "speaking officially"?
Answer: The answer to your question lies in the rest of the comment (as the head...)

2. Could you back up and answer, "When has a Pope ever spoken ex-cathedra?"

Answer : Here's one example: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

3. Does a pope have to inform us that it is "ex cathedra" before it is "ex cathedra"?

Answer: No.

Who was Pope in 1409?

Answer: Gregory XII

If nobody knew what the scripture were until it was decided at an ecumenical council, then how could Timothy have known the scriptures from his childhood?

Answer: Timothy knew which books were part of the Old Testament because the authoritative church of his childhood told him so.

Who or what was the "authoritative church" of Timothy's childhood, and please give the passages that state as much.

Answer: Since the New Testament hadn't been canonized yet, all he had was the Old Testament. The Jewish hierarchy agreed on most of what Timothy would have recognized as scripture

So, in your opinion, the OT was "canonized" by what you style the "Jewish hierarchy". Can you provide a passage for that? Also, was the Book of, say, Isaiah "scripture" before the Jewish hierarchy declared it to be "scripture"?

Response: Since the Jews did not believe in going by scripture alone, I find it curious that you would ask for that teaching to be found in scripture. It wouldn't have to be. As for Isaiah, yes.

I simply asked for a passage confirming your position.


I am not familiar with any.

Nor am I. It is a gross assumption to state that the Hebrew scriptures "became" scriptures only because the "Hebrew church" (as you call it) said they were. It is also of note that, in your case, your only authority for the creation narrative is ... a bunch of Jews.

With all due respect, your "what passage" argument is irrelevant since the Jewish people never claimed their authority solely from scripture. Secondly, what other authority is possible for the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures (in your opinion)? And I never said the phrase, "a bunch of Jews". Let's not be flippant.

From whence did they claim authority, if not solely from the OT scriptures?
From their Oral Tradition.

Alright, can you verify us something that an Israelite believed in, say, 1000 BC that was not found in the Holy Scriptures, i. e. something necessary to salvation that was not written down, but just passed down by mouth?

All the teachings that were eventually written down in what became known as the Talmud. Google "Oral Torah" for more information.

Thanks. I wasn't aware that ancient Israelites considered the "oral Torah" as anything essential.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 4:40:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/7/2014 6:02:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Well since we know where he Is buried, saying Peter was a myth is silly.
Historical Myths like Story book Satan = Peter, aren't literally buried anywhere.

You are the silly one for believing otherwise!

At 6/7/2014 6:02:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
And since Peter is in Heaven,
Heaven-going for all believers even in your Story book is a no-no!

You are the silly one!

At 6/7/2014 6:02:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
he certainly isn't an "agent of Satan".
Mark 8:33 states it IS a Satan so you are correct it isn't an agent of Satan. it IS a Satan!

Hence the catholic popeys are its agents = agents of Satan!

You are a silly billy!

Next!
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 6:39:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 4:40:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 6/7/2014 6:02:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Well since we know where he Is buried, saying Peter was a myth is silly.
Historical Myths like Story book Satan = Peter, aren't literally buried anywhere.

You are the silly one for believing otherwise!

We have just as much evidence for where Peter is buried as we do anyone else. So if we can't trust that, we can't trust the burial place of anyone.

At 6/7/2014 6:02:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
And since Peter is in Heaven,
Heaven-going for all believers even in your Story book is a no-no!

You are the silly one!

Sure, but thousands of intercessory miracles attributed to him are evidence of Peter being in Heaven.

At 6/7/2014 6:02:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
he certainly isn't an "agent of Satan".
Mark 8:33 states it IS a Satan so you are correct it isn't an agent of Satan. it IS a Satan!

Hence the catholic popeys are its agents = agents of Satan!

You are a silly billy!
Well if he was really Satan, he was no longer Satan in John 21:17 since Jesus called him Simon in this verse. And since Jesus never called him Satan again, we have no evidence to believe he was ever Satan again (if he ever was in the first place).
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax