Yes, a church based on and teaching the Bible is a foundation of truth. A church alone is not a foundation of truth.

How can there be multiple (and conflicting) foundations of truth? Did Christ not say that His Church would never fall? There's only been one established Church since Christ's time.

Where in the Bible does it say that a church must be based on the Bible? Did we not just read that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church - not any church?

Well, haven't been posting lately, but now I check the forums and I see this thread. And wow, what a mess. Is it just not possible to have a 'discussion'? If you don't have anything useful to contribute, then just don't post. Don't give it a second thought. Don't waste your time.

Also, some of you need to do some actual research (looking at you, Gold). Wikipedia is a great place.

Disclaimer: I am a practicing Christian, but I am not with any denomination. In fact, I think denominations are a bad idea. Everything I have to say comes from my understanding of the Bible, and it is my opinion.

Mary: The point being made is why do Catholics pray to Mary for intercession. Why would anyone think that Mary could intercede? Or that Mary is someone you can pray to?

Well, according to scripture, we should honor Mary, but that's it. Anything else attributed to Mary seems to be Catholic innovation. God is who we pray to. Christians do not even pray to Christ or the trinity. So if you believe that you can pray to Mary or anyone besides God, you would probably also [have to] believe in the sanctity of the Catholic church and its additional doctrine.

Virgin Birth: What some of you were talking about earlier, the mistranslation of the hebrew word for virgin: this is a complete non-issue. Isaiah is a book from the old testament with prophecies of Christ. Suppose that Isaiah actually meant a young woman. Mary was a young woman, right?

The New Testament Gospels account for the virgin birth, and because the prophecy was fulfilled and because we hold the Gospels to be true, the difference in wording in Isaiah makes little difference.

Trinity: The trinity is another doctrine the early Catholics came up with. However, it is hard to refute based on scripture. There are several verses in the bible which show that Jesus was related to God on a level beyond the normal Father/Son relationship.

But why does it matter? Jesus says that he is God's Son, and that is easy for us to accept. If we are supposed to believe that he was also a part of God, and that the Trinity or Godhead is something to be worshipped, then I think it is more than worthy of a few verses in the bible!

The trinity concept was created around AD 200 and closely resembles three-formed deities of other religions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Other Religions believing Chirst was the son of God

The essential aspect of Christian faith is that Christ died for mankind's sins. 'Other' religions (anything aside from Catholic and Protestant mainstream) that accept that Christ was the Son of God and did die for our sins should be recognized by all Christians. Any follower of that religion is a Christian because he believes in Christ.

It bothers me that some, such as the Witnesses and the Mormons, believe that Christianity is in need of Restoration into something truer to the beginning - often with additional material/revelations.

Side Note: the Witnesses do fulfill a prophecy by Jesus about people claiming that Christ has come. Jesus specifically stated that when He comes again, there will be no doubt. See Matthew 24:23. It's kind of ironic because the Witnesses are known for treating scripture very literally.

Other Religions believing that Jesus was a Prophet

Religions such as Islam (which I have a lot of respect for) do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God, but instead a Prophet. Without the belief that Christ died for our sins, belief that he was a Prophet does nothing and according to scripture, they will not be saved from Hell.

A Prophet is someone who speaks for God. Jesus explains in the Gospels what his purpose is, and to believe that he was just a Prophet means that you also do not accept any record of what He said.

-------------------------------


Okay, there you go. My 2 cents. I know, I probably shouldn't have wasted my time, but I'd already wasted enough reading the last five pages so a little more didn't matter.

I really should be sleeping..but regardless:



http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu67.htm

Let me clarify something - you do not believe that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one God?

Yes, there's been one church established since Jesus' time. But that's running under the assumption that the Catholic church is still the church of Jesus Christ.



A church that forsakes the word of God and places its authority above that of the god it claims to worship is asserting itself over God. Your 1 Timothy 3:15 quote is taken out of context - the entire chapter 3 of 1 Timothy speaks on how the church leaders and the church itself should be examples of good Christianity and good practice, not placing a man-made organization over the word of God. The Bible affirms itself to be truth:

[quote=Psalms 119:160]Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.[/quote]

[quote=2 Timothy 3:16]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:[/quote]

[quote=2 Peter 1:21]For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.[/quote]

[quote=Psalms 119:142]Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.[/quote]

[quote=Matthew 4:4]But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.[/quote]

One can draw parallels between the Catholic church and the pharisees that Jesus criticized:

[quote=Mark 7:7-8]"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."[/quote]

Churches are man-made organizations. They are fallible. To treat their clergy as representations of God is an insult to God, for these people haven't been authoritated by God to speak for him, not in the way that Moses, Noah, Abraham, or Jesus were authoritated, and, thus, can not accurately represent the word and will of God. The only source of God's word that Christians have, to this day, is the Bible.

If the Bible is the only source, as you say, I challenge you to show me where the Bible says that. If you had read the Catechism I had quoted earlier, you would see that the Church does not, in fact, place itself above Scripture.

@Cadetlee

Mary is addressed in prayer which is what I was getting at - whether you pray 'to' or 'through' her is beside the point.



No. I don't believe we can fully understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are related, and creating terms like 'trinity' or 'Godhead' does not help.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php

Regardless of the Catholic catechism says, what it's doing is asserting that it is the source of truth, not the Bible, which is the word of God. You yourself implied that a church does not have to be based on the Bible - if not the Bible, then what? The authority of man?

The word of God is all that is needed. See:

[quote=Proverbs 30:5-6]Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.[/quote]

[quote=1 John 5:9]If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.[/quote]

Indeed, the Bible speaks against that which the Catholic church itself has committed:

[quote=1 Corinthians 4:6]...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.[/quote]

You have said that the church is to be considered the base of truth, not the Bible. An organization of men is to be considered the base of truth, not the Word of God. A fallible organization is considered to be the base of truth, not the infallible Word of God.

This is one of the reasons why Luther left the church. It's become overburdened with its own self-importance that, even though it may say it doesn't place itself above the Word of God, its actions speak otherwise.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Nope, it's focused on being as good as possible while scorning the bad in you. But you are, by nature bad, so all efforts are futile. What a joyous and enlightening religion. Gotta love hating yourself.[/QUOTE]
I don't view it that way. I think it is enlightening to a point. If I strip off every concept of morality I could be a real rotten ******* buy just succumbing to my natural human tendancies. I think we are all evil taught to be good.

You have yet to show me anything in the Bible to back up your claim that it is the sole source of truth. Scripture itself states clearly that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church. What I quoted earlier was the Catholic Catechism - stating that the Word of God is true and perfect.

So we can concentrate on one point of discussion - do you believe in the Lutheran doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

I've given you quotes where the Bible asserts itself as truth. You've given me an out-of-context quote that does not prove that the church is the sole foundation of truth - as I said above, 1 Timothy 3 details how church leaders should behave, not that they are the basis of truth.



Yes, because we have received no other word of God since then.

Just a thought: if the Bible were the sole rule of faith, then what good were the teachings in the earliest years of Christianity before the New Testement was compiled? It was the teachings of Jesus Christ as relayed by the Apostles and later others that became the New Testement. Leaders of the early Church wrote the New Testement.

That Catholics 'disregard' the Bible is the idea the Church was just inventing things like the Dogma of the Real Presence, Papal Supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, etc. We don't believe these doctrines to have ever been invented by man, but to have been believed and practiced by the Church since its foundation by Christ. At the end of John's gospel, he specifically says that there were many things said and done by Jesus that were not written. The only reason I think tradition is disregarded is that people think it can be changed without record, but there's plenty if historical record backing up the Dogmatic traditions.

Also, many of the early Christian writings didn't survive, or were disregraded by the early church because they conflicted with some of the things they wanted to push.

you've earned it! i couldnt have said that better myself.

[quote=Dj Yoshi]
Another sidenote--the religion that seems the most true to the bible to me is Islam. It basically preaches all the goodness that man should be, also one of the most interesting counters to all christianity has come from a follower of that religion that pointed out something to me--Why do Christians worship Jesus when, in essence, he is but a false God? He is not God, not the one you should worship according to the Old Testament and 10 Commandments.[/quote]

along with all the goodness that man should be it also teaches all the inferiorness of women... that just doesnt sit well with me.
also, the old testamen gives a prophecy(sp?) about the "messiah" acording to the new testament jesus fufills this prophecy. and if in fact he does fufill(woohoo with the sp?) said prophecy then he is not in fact a false god and does not conflict with the ten commandments... it all ust depends on which texts you choose to believe.



ever watch the movie stigmata? granted it is only a movie and i dot usually look to hollywood to find truth, but the church has often gotten rid of or "removed" things that contradict their teachings.

[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]Just a thought: if the Bible were the sole rule of faith, then what good were the teachings in the earliest years of Christianity before the New Testement was compiled? It was the teachings of Jesus Christ as relayed by the Apostles and later others that became the New Testement. Leaders of the early Church wrote the New Testement.[/QUOTE]
The different Gospels were written for different target audiences. The early Roman Catholic Church also canonized a lot of personal correspondence which was attributed to the Apostles but wasn't written by them because it promoted their beliefs (1 Peter, for instance). Other books were actually encoded communiques when Christians were still being persecuted by Rome (Revelations), with all sense of context and meaning lost.

The New Testament is a horribly messy thing which was slapped together in about an hour during a papal bender. The OT is based on stories passed down verbally with almost perfect accuracy (based on comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls). The NT? Not so much.

weeeeee

postcount +1

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

No.





What has been removed from the Bible?

[quote=CadetLee's source]Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective. Often we ask particular saints to pray for us if we feel they have a particular interest in our problem. For example, many people ask Saint Monica to pray for them if they have trouble with unanswered prayers, because Monica prayed for twenty years for her son to be converted. Finally her prayers were answered in a way she never dreamed of -- her son, Augustine, became a canonized saint and a Doctor of the Church.[/quote]
Well, the point I'm making is that you have to believe the Catholic Church actually has the authority to recognize saints.

Personally, I'm with Wolfy on the Catholic Church and its claims. And yes, the New Testament is a kind of a scrambled collection, but the meaning is definitely not lost.

True to the Bible? You can't mean the collection of books that we have today. Islam teaches that Jesus was a Prophet, while the Bible says that he is the Messiah.

Ditto.

Yes, the Catholic Church does have quite a history. And it shows that a lot of its doctrine was created by the Church well after its beginning. For example, the trinity in 200 AD, indulgences ~1100 AD to 1567 AD, and purgatory between 200 and 400 AD.

Having read medieval history, I don't care what any Catholic says, it's over. That's not considering their dodgy theology. Didn't the council of Orange condemn the teaching of Pelagius at the Council of Orange?

Oh, and here's an interesting fact. During the decline of Papal power, one Pope claimed temporal power over the entire earth. This claim has not yet been retracted.

The Bible as it's know today wasn't complied for many years, possibly hundreds of years after Jesus' death. There were several other Gospels written that were more realist as to what Jesus did, but those were left out because they portrayed Jesus as a regular guy rather than someone performing miracles. Other aspects of Jesus' life were also altered.

Yeah, the Bible in it's entirety (New Testi.) is like 144 books, which got cut down to the current number by the only church at the time (Zomg Catholic).

I go to work for 15 hours and come back to a mess..






http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93030.html




Simon Peter warns us about Scripture itself, and how it may be misunderstood:



I still ask -- where does the Bible say that it in and of itself is the only Word of God? If you state that your aforementioned verses indicate that, how would you explain the verses I just quoted?

The Catechism did not state that the Church is the only source of truth - you are distorting the facts to your own advantage. Completely contrary to what you're saying, the Catechism states that Scripture is sacred -- you are implying that Catholics hold Scripture second to the Church, when in fact it is equal with Sacred Tradition. Note that Sacred Tradition and the traditions of man are two different things.



Martin Luther wanted to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, but they were kept. Protestant Bibles do not have the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and parts of Daniel. As you all know, Protestantism was not around before the Bible was written. On what authority were those books removed?

Your 2 Thess. quote is, again, taken out of context - he's warning followers against the deceptions of others who would lead them away from the religion. These practices are outlined in the Bible, but you seem to imply that the practices that the Church has created in the past century-and-a-half are covered by this document that predates their creation.

I fail to see how your Peter quote justifies putting a church on the same level as the word of God.



The only difference between the Traditions of the Catholic church and the traditions of men is that the Catholic church says that they're sacred. You're trying to convince me that the church is an authority of religion by using documents made by the church and statements made by the church that re-affirms itself as a source of truth, when I do not recognize the Catholic church as a source of truth. The only source of truth is the Bible. The Bible says, "These are God's words, and they are true." Nowhere else does it say, "And the church is a source of truth, too."

In addition, sola scriptura is not an additional gospel. The Bible affirms itself to be truth. It does not affirm anything else to be truth, unless that object derives its power from the Bible (for example, a church). Thus, the logical conclusion is that the Bible is the only source of truth, since there is no other universally-recognized document stating otherwise.



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

• Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
  # None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
• None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
• The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

They aren't real books that belong in the OT. They're an addition to the Bible - not additional in a blasphemous sense, but if the Jews, who wrote the books, don't consider them to be divinely-inspired, why have them in the Bible?

Oh god, stop this endless throwing out of bible quotes to prove your points. It's all worth ****. Every single gospel tells a different story (not even mentioning the ones that were left out of the bible.)

Have you guys ever heard what the Qu'ran says about Jesus? He didn't die on the cross, Judas did. God gave him the face of Jesus, because Judas had betrayed Jesus, and so Judas was crucified instead of Jesus.

Who's to say this isn't what happened? We'll never know, and it's simply a matter of what you want to believe, as is anything related to religion.

Also, the holy trinity is a concept made up, and added later, by the Catholic church.

The bible is not 'the word of god'. It is the word of men. And as such, changed and manipulated over the centuries to fit it to their needs as a tool to excercise power.


People should burn all their holy books and do what's in their hearts instead of bickering about details like pharisees and scribes. Jesus would agree with me. Beat that.

Wolfy: I was anti-Catholic for many years - I know you don't know me personally, but just keep that in the back of your mind, and please be open when you read this. It will go through multiple Bible verses disproving Sola Scriptura.


The Jews also don't believe that Christ came yet..something doesn't fit here. :p


Incidentally, nearly every Christian church believes in it. Hmm.



I don't see anybody forcing you to read this.

Beat it? Sure - what's in my heart is to be Catholic. Ha. :p

That's because the Roman Church was the first official church. Almost all other Christian movements stem from it.

True -- the odd thing is that many churches believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura (by scripture alone), and that tradition is not important. Yet, they believe in the Trinity, which is Catholic Tradition.

Stop raping God.

I'm not anti-Catholic. I'm as anti-Catholic as I am anti-Islam. I just don't believe in the same beliefs as that organization.



It cites Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations and to teach what he has commanded, then cites John 20:30 and 21:25. However, both of the John quotes say that he performed many miracles and did many things (respectively) not found in the Bible - but not that he commanded many things not found in the Bible.

Mark 16:15 simply enforces that the word of God and His commandments need to be spread, not dictating from which source the truth needs to come from (Bible or church).

Luke 1:1-4 simply introduces Luke as a written account of what he has seen, so that things won't get mixed up by word of mouth. Again, this does not do away with Sola Scriptura - if anything, it strengthens such a belief, because it is necessary to put such things into writing to solidify their integrity.

Acts 8:30-31 and Hebrews 5:12 does not negate a stance of Sola Scriptura. It simply says that one should be able to seek assistance in understanding the Bible from their church leaders. This doesn't conflict with Sola Scriptura - it's only when an organization makes rules and dogma that can not be found cited within the Bible that Sola Scriptura has been done away with.

Acts 15:1-14 is used to demonstrate that scripture was not referenced in the decision. That would be because the Scripture was not yet compiled, nor fully written - at that time, it was being written. That passage simply demonstrates that it was no longer by following Jewish law that one was saved, but by faith in God.

In Acts 17:28, he simply uses other writings to help convey the message of the Bible, not as a source of church doctrine.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 restates what was said in another letter. Thus, what material was needed to be discussed was re-stated in the Bible. This does not disprove Sola Scriptura.

As I said above, 1 Corinthians 11:2 simply states to "follow the traditions" - traditions set by the Bible.

Philippians 4:9 doesn't disprove Sola Scriptura. Whatever Paul's actions were, they were based on the teachings of the Bible. He was simply saying that he was a living example of the Bible's teachings.

Colossians 4:16 says to "read the letter from Laodicea." Simply referencing to a writing that is not in the Bible does not disprove Sola Scriptura, especially when the contents of that letter may be no more than "Hi, how are you, Jane's fine. How are the kids".

The citation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13 again makes the mistake that Sola Scriptura somehow reaches back before the Bible was written and compiled. Of course you can't say, "Follow this book that hasn't been written yet but I'm going to eventually."

1 Thessalonians 3:10 simply states that he wishes to supply what is lacking in their faith. How does that disprove Sola Scriptura?

The citation of 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 again erroneously assumes that Sola Scriptura somehow extends back before the writing and compilation of the Bible.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 again refers to traditions or teachings found within the Bible itself. And, of course the word "Bible" isn't in the Bible. What kind of claim against Sola Scriptura is that?

The citation of 1 Timothy 3:14-15 again makes the same mistake of assuming that Sola Scriptura extends back before the writing, completion, and compilation of the Bible.

In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul doesn't mention committing the words he spoke to writing because he's not psychic or, more likely, oral tradition was more common of the day, and not every man could read or write. Eventually, however, his words were committed to writing.

2 Timothy 3:14 refers to teachings of the Bibles. How does this disprove Sola Scriptura?

James 4:5, to quote this page, "probably is the view that James was not citing a particular passage but summarizing the truth expressed in several Old Testament passages."

2 Peter 1:20, and the additional scripture they reference, means that, yes, interpretation should be a public action - one not made by priests, bishops, archbishops, or popes. What if these individuals are wrong? How can your faith be placed in an organization that is imperfect? It's easier for a single person to change their beliefs in the light of new evidence than it is for an entire religion.

2 Peter 3:16 doesn't disprove Sola Scriptura. If a person has difficulty understanding Scripture, there's nothing wrong with getting a point of view from one's church leader(s). But that doesn't mean that the church can make doctrine without Biblical support.

1 John 4:1 says "test to see if the person is a false prophet, by asking them if Jesus has come back in the flesh." What does that have to do with Sola Scriptura?

1 Samuel 3:1-9 doesn't have anything to do with Sola Scriptura. Samuel simply mistakes God's voice for Eli's.

1 Kings 13:1-32 again, has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

And this was just the first part of the page.



Well, yes, but the Jews wrote the Torah, and these books would be OT (as they pre-date Jesus' coming), so it would make sense that, if the Jews didn't use them, why should we?



The Trinity has some Biblical support.

I take it you have never read the Bible?

The Qu'ran was written 700 years after the death of Christ. He had no clue what happened. I don't take anyone seriously who was obsessed with urine.

What are you talking about??! The soldiers who splashed urine on the Qu'ran? I don't understand the association.

What! No. There are just strange things in the Qu'ran.

Then what are you talking about?

Nothing more strange than a man being tortured to death for the sins of all mankind, people coming back to life as fishies, the world being made out of tiny strings of energy....

It's all crazy.

But people believe it.

Because people are crazy.

The world is crazy.

How do we know what crazy to believe?

Because, something that can seem crazy, CRAZY crazy, can also make you calm. If something makes you calm and at peace with the world, willing to be good to other people, good to yourself, and better the world, that is right.

Wether it's believing a man died on a cross.

That you will be enlightened instead of being a fish or something.

That we can understand the crazy world better by looking at it as strings...

Whatever. However, that isn't to say they all correspond to the truth. Luckily, the single most important part of ultimate truth, seems to be being good to people, yourself, and the world.

I find the stuff about angels to be interesting.

After reading memnoch the devil... i want more.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I totally lost you after the second one...



The Ultimate Truth is something you made up on the spot for a post on teh interweb? That is the craziest thing of all.

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Luke.htm
Unfortunately for your argument, all the books in the Bible weren't written as everything happened..so things must have been passed down orally.


Sola Scriptura cannot be found cited within the Bible, so it shouldn't exist in the first place. The Bible was compiled in 397 AD -- Sola Scriptura came about in the 1500s. The Apostle John died around 100 AD -- what held the Church together for nearly three hundred years? Certainly not all was Scripture, since there are many references to tradition in the text - incidentally, the Greek word 'tradition' (paradosis) means to hand on from one generation to the next.




He couldn't have been handing out Bibles, since they didn't exist at the time.


Philippians 4:9 reads:

Again, the Bible was not written. You will not find Catholic teaching that disagrees with the Bible -- and nowhere in that passage does it state that everything that was taught and heard was written. Oral tradition, anyone?


It doesn't specify either way, and you are speculating on the contents of said letter.


Exactly - you cannot say to follow this book that hasn't been written. This, however, begs the question: What were they following before scripture was written, and who instituted the practice of Sola Scriptura? I'll answer the second question for you -- Martin Luther started teaching it in the 1500s, well after the Bible was written. Did he receive divine revelation to disprove 1,500 years of oral tradition?


The claim is that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura! If Sola Scriptura were to be true, the Bible would have to say so itself, in order to fulfill the definition of the term.



Already addressed.


Again, the Bible did not exist at the time this letter was written. The point is not the teaching itself -- the point is the fact that the Church did not have a Bible to work with at the time -- and why would God remove change the rules on Tradition as soon as the Bible was completed?



New evidence? How then are there many churches that disagree with one another, but both follow the same Bible? There hasn't been any Divine Revelation anytime recently, correct? So, how would you explain of the creation of the Harvest Christian church in 1972, the United Methodists in 1968, the Calvary Chapel in 1965, etc? They all have the same 'evidence' to work with.


If I go to my Church leaders, they will tell me one thing. Obviously yours will tell you something else. If they disagree, who's right? I will stand with 2000 years of Sacred Tradition backed by Scripture.



Read into it a little more:



You like to see everything in straight-up black and white; unfortunately, the Bible (and God) isn't that simple.


This part of the site was explaining how God's Word is not always evident - sometimes an authority is needed. If multiple authorities conflict with one another, how would you decide which one to follow?


They were declared Canon by the Catholic Church in the 4th century AD. Who gave the Reformation people the authority to remove them, after they were considered Scripture for 1,500 years?


I brought this up because someone stated that the word "catholic" was not in the Bible. Neither is "Trinity" - the page you linked to actually backs up my statement.

I'm not going to quote things that I think are covered by other responses in this post, so, if you feel that I've failed to properly address any points, please point them out to me.



That's correct. Again, how does the fact that oral traditions predate the existence of the Bible negate it as the only source of truth? I've never said Sola Scriptura has been an ever-lasting and eternal doctrine.



That seems rather...odd to argue that since it's not in Scripture, you shouldn't have to base everything in Scripture.



The teachings of the apostles are in the Bible. Though the Bible itself did not exist in its form today, but the teachings of the apostles do. Thus, when they said that a person should follow the teachings and traditions they have learned, they were speaking of the teachings and traditions that would eventually be included in the Bible.



As are you. You say, "The letters could contain information that was necessary to run the church," and I say, "We have no idea that that is the case." My point, however, is supported by the complete lack of any note of these letters' contents - in this case, inexistence of evidence is evidence of inexistence.



You said yourself that the Bible was compiled in 397 CE. That's only 397 years of oral tradition, at best, and that practice ended long before Luther tacked a note on a door and said, "Ein minuten bitte! Ich habe eine kleinen problemo avec diese religione!" (he was from everywhere!)



The Bible is truth. That much is agreed upon. Nowhere in the Bible does it give a church the right to create doctrines (excepting the lives and words of the apostles) that are not based on Biblical support. That is the sole basis and support of Sola Scriptura - no other source is given the authority to be truth on this planet.



If you have stories and rules passed down from person to person that finally get put in written format, and these stories and rules were considered truth, why add anything to them when there has been no authority granted to do such a thing?



They all have the same evidence to work with, yes, but not all of them see it correctly. I think the teaching of the Theory of Evolution is a fantastic example of this.



And you'll stand with an organization responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, smuggling Nazis out of Europe to Venezuela and housing them, and the sexual molestation of children. Admittedly, the last two are a small, small percentage of the clergy, but the fact remains that the Catholic church is an imperfect organization whose leaders have led astray many people for their own personal benefit.

In addition, not all traditions within the Catholic church have Biblical support. The sinlessness of Mary, her continued existence as a virgin, the rosary, and the Mysteries of the Rosary are just a few.



The Bible is self-attesting - it affirms itself to be truth multiple times (as I have listed in previous posts). How does that story of Samuel deny that, and what does that have to do with Sola Scriptura?



You decide which one to follow based on how you feel each is correct. I've evaluated the Catholic church, found it to be unsuitable, and chosen a different church. Just the same as you have evaluated other churchs, found them unsuitable, and converted to Catholicism. I'm not asking you to convert from Catholicism, merely explaining why I believe what I believe.



Perhaps the Catholic church was wrong to make them canon. If the original writers didn't consider them to be so, if God's chosen people found them unsuitable, then who is the Catholic church to override their authority to maintain their own book?



Ah, okay. Yes, Catholic, Trinity, Protestant, etc. etc. don't have Biblical roots.