re: Actor Shia LeBeouf converts to Catholicism

quote:

---

we are talking history of the church which gave us the bible.

---

God gave us the Bible. The Church received it. Big difference.

quote:

---

church, scripture, traditions. all go together like grace, faith and works.

---

It depends what you mean by those things “go[ing] together”. I’m talking about authority when talking about church, scripture, and tradition, and only one of those three is “God breathed”.

I’m talking about the basis of salvation/justification when I talk about grace, faith, and works, and works are clearly not the basis of our justification in the scriptures.

quote:

---

there is no sola scriptura, no sola fide, etc. i have already covered this. the calvinist is a hack.

---

There is sola scriptura. There is sola fidei. I already covered this. Your link to a blog didn’t refute anything and neither did your linked video.

quote:

---

There is sola scriptura. There is sola fidei. I already covered this

---

Faith Alone. Scripture Alone. Both de bunked. Both heretical views that were unheard of for over one thousand years after Jesus left the Earth and bequeathed His church to us. Stop lying. Stop perverting the truth.

Faith alone - Luther added the word "alone" to the phrase on his own initiative.

Scripture alone - nowhere in the Bible is this doctrine taught. In fact, when the eunuch was reading the Bible on his own, he was approached by a Disciple. The eunuch stated that he needed a guide or a teacher in order to understand the full meaning. This Lesson from the Bible is the OPPOSITE of "Scripture Alone" because if scripture alone were true, that passage would not be there to contradict it.

Catholic Answers de bunks all of your false teaching, Foo.

LINK

quote:

---

His word (remember, we call it “God’s word”)

---

As usual for you, you are perverting the truth.

You say that we call it God's Word, and so it is true. However, you always ALWAYS neglect to explain the Full Truth of the meaning of God's Word.

Have you not read your Scripture? The book of John teaches that Jesus Christ is The Word. Logos is the Greek word used in the original manuscripts. Logos means Reason, as in reasoning out a problem. Christ is the Logos, i.e. the Word. As such ALL that Christ bequeathed to us is God's Word.

The Apostles received the Word of God directly from Jesus. Jesus didn't write anything down. All that Jesus handed down to the Apostles is The Word of God because it came from The Word i.e. Jesus. For many years what Christ preached and taught to the Apostles was all of The Word that the Church had. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN WORD OF GOD - what Christ preached by word, told to his Apostles and what Christ taught by deed.

The Bible itself says that not everything that Christ did and said was in the Bible! Have you not read your Scripture to see this for yourself?

So, how do we know what The Word of God is that is NOT in the Bible? Christ's Church! Christ ascended to Heaven and left His Church to us to guide us. Peter the head of the Church. JESUS BEQUEATHED A CHURCH TO US. JESUS LEFT NO BOOK FOR US, when he ascended to Heaven.

God's Word is NOT just The Bible. It's not "either/or" as you always are wont to declare. It's BOTH what Christ taught that is NOT in the Bible AND what is IN the Bible.

Even so, you don't even follow the whole Bible. The Deuterocanon is also The Word of God, but, you follow Martin Luther's decision to leave those Holy Books out of your truncated version of the Bible.

Incidentally, Martin Luther also wanted to cut the Books of James and Revelation out of the Bible. Did you know that?

quote:

---

You say that we call it God's Word, and so it is true. However, you always ALWAYS neglect to explain the Full Truth of the meaning of God's Word.

Have you not read your Scripture? The book of John teaches that Jesus Christ is The Word. Logos is the Greek word used in the original manuscripts. Logos means Reason, as in reasoning out a problem. Christ is the Logos, i.e. the Word. As such ALL that Christ bequeathed to us is God's Word.

---

I can tell you haven't been reading my posts carefully. I have said several times that Jesus is the Word of God that came in human form.

quote:

---

The Apostles received the Word of God directly from Jesus. Jesus didn't write anything down. All that Jesus handed down to the Apostles is The Word of God because it came from The Word i.e. Jesus. For many years what Christ preached and taught to the Apostles was all of The Word that the Church had. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN WORD OF GOD - what Christ preached by word, told to his Apostles and what Christ taught by deed.

The Bible itself says that not everything that Christ did and said was in the Bible! Have you not read your Scripture to see this for yourself?

---

I have read my Bible, have you? In that very verse you refer to (John 21:25), it says that if everything Jesus said were written down, that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Where are these world-filling books that the Apostles passed down to the Church? If it were important enough to write the gospels so that the Church could read what really happened with Jesus' life, ministry, and death, then why did the Apostles not feel compelled to write down the additional words of God that could fill the entire earth? Or at least their direct successors, if Rome is to be believed?

What you are missing is that not every word of Christ was meant to be passed down. In Luke 1:1-3, we are given a specific reason for why the gospel of Luke was written. It was so that Theophilis could have certainty about what he was being taught. In other words, Luke wrote his gospel down to put in written form an evidence to support the teachings that he was receiving. What teachings were those? The things of the gospel that Luke was confirming in his writing, specifically those things where were necessary for salvation by knowing who Christ was and what He did to save us from our sins.

quote:

---

So, how do we know what The Word of God is that is NOT in the Bible? Christ's Church! Christ ascended to Heaven and left His Church to us to guide us. Peter the head of the Church. JESUS BEQUEATHED A CHURCH TO US. JESUS LEFT NO BOOK FOR US, when he ascended to Heaven.

---

Jesus didn't leave any writings for us. That's precisely why the Apostles wrote letters and books to leave behind a written account of what was necessary for Christians to believe. It wasn't left behind in some secret treasury of knowledge that Christians for centuries had no access to.

quote:

---

God's Word is NOT just The Bible. It's not "either/or" as you always are wont to declare. It's BOTH what Christ taught that is NOT in the Bible AND what is IN the Bible.

---

What Christ taught (that was intended for us to know and believe) was written down for us in the scriptures. We have everything God intended to convey.

And from your perspective, it's possible that we still don't have all of God's word, since you believe that the Apostolic Tradition is also God's Word, and yet we have dogmas that have been revealed in the last 100 years that were unknown to the early Church. How can you say that we have all of God's Word today if in 100 years, Rome may decide on something else as "developed dogma" that was not known, understood, or believed by Catholics today?

On the other hand, God's word as preserved in the scriptures does not change. The doctrines taught in the Bible do not change with a new Pope or Council.

quote:

---

Even so, you don't even follow the whole Bible. The Deuterocanon is also The Word of God, but, you follow Martin Luther's decision to leave those Holy Books out of your truncated version of the Bible.

Incidentally, Martin Luther also wanted to cut the Books of James and Revelation out of the Bible. Did you know that?

---

The Apocrypha is not the Bible. It wasn't believed to be the Bible by most in the early Church, and it wasn't believed to be the Bible by even the Jews at the time of Christ.

Therefore I reject the assertion that I don't "follow the whole Bible", because those books are not canonical (they weren't written under the inspiration of the Spirit).

Also, I don't honestly care what Martin Luther thought of the canon. He wasn't right about everything (especially the Eucharist), but had had great insights into a lot of things.

quote:

---

I don't honestly care what Martin Luther thought of the canon

---

Now you have descended into cognitive dissonance, which discredits you entirely. You don't even seem to realize that you follow Martin Luther EXACTLY when it comes to what Luther says are the books of the Bible, what Luther says about Scripture Alone and what Luther says about Faith Alone.

You desire to distance yourself from Martin Luther, and rightly so, considering how he said that Christ committed adultery with Mary Magdalene and other women he met in Scripture AND the way that Luther advised Philip of Hesse to engage in Bigamy but keep it secret for the sake of Christendom. Yes, you are wise to attempt to distance yourself from that lunatic Martin Luther. BUT YOU FOLLOW HIS THEOLOGY EXACTLY - even down to Luther's teaching about Predestination.

Foo, you Theological Fool. A wise Greek teaches us to :Know Thyself. You need to know that, even though you want us to believe that you don't follow Martin Luther, when we analyze what you believe, the reasonable conclusion is that you follow Martin Luther's teaching very, very closely.

quote:

---

What you are missing is that not every word of Christ was meant to be passed down

---

I challenge you to cite the exact passage in the Bible in which Jesus Christ Himself teaches us that "not every word of Christ is meant to be passed down", because that sounds crazy to me. I want you to cite in the Bible where it is stated that Jesus engaged in idle chatter and pitter-patter.

quote:

---

So, you see, Foo. You are a Theological Fool. You teach the false doctrine of Scripture Alone (which is unbiblical), but you do not even follow your own false teaching, because you refuse to LISTEN to what Jesus taught to the Leading Pharisee about the Book of Sirach.

---

How great is it that tulip mania broke out amongst a population seduced by the false doctrines summarized by TULIP? The suckers couldn't wait to find new levels of being suckered.

How bold of the heretic Calvin that he would assume that St Augustine would tolerate an ounce of his five points.

"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."

quote:

---

You are perverting the truth, which you always do. The History of the Church proves that you are wrong. The early church believed the Deuterocanon to be Holy Scripture because these Holy Books were in the Bibles used in Church until Martin Luther himself decided to rip them out of the Bible. These books of the Old Testament are even in your esteemed Wycliffe Bible.

---

You accuse me of perverting the truth and are citing church history, but you are wrong. The Apocrypha wasn't even believed to be canonical by the very man that translated the scriptures into Latin (St. Jerome). He only included them because he was overruled at the time.

The canon (as believed/accepted at the time) was written about and listed by several authors early on that did not include the Apocrypha as authoritative. Amphilochius (AD 190), Origin (AD 200), Athanasius (AD 330), Epiphanius (AD 360), Gregory Nazianzen (AD 390) and Jermoe (AD 400) are all examples of Christians that made clear distinctions between the Hebrew OT and the Apocryphal books. I think the confusion comes in due to the fact that the early Church found the Apocryphal books helpful and recommended them be taught. That's precisely why Luther included them in his translation, but left them in a separate section.

Ruffinus (AD 400) had this to say on the matter: "These are they which the Fathers concluded within the canon; of which they would have the assertions of our faith to consist. But we must know that there are other books, which are not called canonical, but ecclesiastical, by the ancients; such as the Wisdom, which is called of Solomon, and another Wisdom, which is called of the Son of Sirach; which book among the Latins is called by the general term 'Ecclesiasticus," by which word, no the author of the book, but the quality of the writing is designated. of the same order is the little book of Tobit, also Judith and the books of Maccabees."

In addition to the early church, Jews such as Philo and Josephus also rejected the Apocrypha as canon. Josephus doesn't include them in his list of the OT canon and Philo quoted extensively from the Hebrew OT but never from the Apocrypha. Melito (AD 170) went to study Hebrew from the Jews and concluded that the OT canon excluded the Apocrypha.

So yeah, you can claim that history supports your view, but that's simply not true.

quote:

---

We know that many Jews accepted these Books as Holy Scripture because these books are in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament that most Jews read when Christ walked the Earth.

---

Tell me: are all the books in the Septuagint included in the canon as currently held by Rome? Are 3 and 4 Maccabees canonical in the eyes of Rome? What about Psalm 151? What about the Prayer of Manasseh? These are all included in the Septuagint but, to my knowledge, are rejected as canonical by Rome. But, according to your argument, if everything included in the Septuagint was canonical by the Jews (and the Apostles, who quoted from the Septuagint), then we should expect the entire contents to be considered canonical, right? If not, then this particular argument holds no water.

quote:

---

We know from history that the Post Temple Jewish Faith of today did not settle on a Canon of the Old Testament until many many years after Christ walked the Earth. This is all historical Fact. You are entitled to your own dismal opinions, but, you are not entitled to your own facts.

---

That's not true for Josephus and Philo, regardless of anything else. Also, none of the authors of the New Testament quoted the Apocrypha like they do the standard OT scriptures. The burden of proof is on you (Rome) to show where the Apocrypha was considered canon for them. Saying that they used the Septuigint won't cut it, either, because it includes books/writings that weren't even included by Rome.

quote:

---

Have you not read the Book of Luke? Christ reclined at table as a dinner guest of a Leading Pharisee. Christ began by referring to the Book of Sirach. You have been falsely taught and you falsely teach others that the Book of Sirach is not Holy Scripture. Jesus Christ Himself teaches you otherwise!

The words of Jesus Himself to the Pharisee Leader proves that Sirach IS Holy Scripture. Jesus taught in Luke 14, 1-14: "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself shall be exalted."

Jesus here is demonstrating to the Pharisees that Sirach is Holy Scripture by this reference to The Book of Sirach, Chapter 3: "My child, conduct your affairs with humility, and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts. Humble yourself the more, the greater you are, and you will find favor with God."

If Jesus Christ Himself quotes, refers to and/or paraphrases an Old Testament Book to a Leading Pharisee at a dinner party, every sane person with the capability to Reason would conclude that Jesus considers this Book to be Holy Scripture. And, additionally, if Jesus did NOT consider Sirach to be a Book of the Old Testament, WOULD HE NOT MENTION THAT at the time that he made reference to this Book to the Leading Teaching Pharisee?

---

Your evidence for the canonicity of the Apocrypha is that Jesus mentioned something about humility that has a vague resemblance to Sirach? You seem to be truly grasping at straws at this point. I don't blame you, though. Your narrative is entirely constructed on the sand of human opinion rather than on the scriptures.

But let's see if your claim holds up. Let's compare Jesus' words to Sirach and other places in the Bible.

Sirach 3:17-18 - "My child, conduct your affairs with humility, and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts. Humble yourself the more, the greater you are, and you will find favor with God."

Sirach is saying is to be humble and you will gain favor with the Lord, and the more exalted you are, the more you should humble yourself. Or in other words, the Lord loves the humble.

Luke 14:10 - "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Jesus is also talking about humility here. He points out that the more humble a person is, the more exalted they will be fore the Lord, and vice versa. Is this a quote from Sirach? Not hardly. How about some other verses about humility?

Psalm 18:27 - "For you save a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down."

Psalm 147:6 - "The Lord lifts up the humble; he casts the wicked to the ground."

Psalm 149:4 - "For the Lord takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with salvation."

Proverbs 3:34 - "Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he gives favor."

Proverbs 11:2 - "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom."

Proverbs 18:12 - "Before destruction a man's heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor."

Isaiah 66:2 - "All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word."

There are countless other verses that talk about the sin of pride and the virtue of humility. Is Jesus quoting Sirach here? Not at all. It's not even close to a direct quote. Is that a specific reference to Sirach? That, too, is uncertain, since there are countless verses both praising the humble and condemning the wicked; both exalting the lowly and bringing down the lofty.

If this is your defense, it is poor indeed, for even a reference to a non-canonical book doesn't make the book canonical. Take Jude 14-15 and Enoch, for example. Do you believe that the Book of Enoch is canonical because of the reference to it by Jude?

quote:

---

I don't want to live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God

---

You're living your life by the words of men, and men alone.