Graven Image

[Nevertheless]

I can define my opinion of the doctrine of demons by scripture, you can define yours yourself. To you you think that you are right, I believe the one written in scripture.

It is not so defined; you are reading it incorrectly.

One of you really ought to give BCV so we can move past this he said/she said garbage.

[Rudy2D]

What is BCV?

[Catholica]

I can define my opinion of the doctrine of demons by scripture, you can define yours yourself. To you you think that you are right, I believe the one written in scripture.

It is not so defined; you are reading it incorrectly.

In the historical context, Paul is writing against the gnostics, who taught that marriage was evil and that no one should marry, that all created things were evil and so especially meat should not be eaten.  In that context we understand the verse as to pertaining to the gnostics.

1Tim 4
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

The gnostics taught the doctrines of demons, and they didn't preach praying to the saints.  They taught that one had to have hidden knowledge to be saved.  Their beliefs varied, but like I wrote, one thing that was fairly uniform is that matter was evil.  They denied the incarnation of Christ.  They are elsewhere referred to as those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh, and are referred to as "anti-Christ".

1Tim 6
20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge.
21 By professing it, some people have deviated from the faith. Grace be with all of you.

[Rudy2D]

In the historical context, Paul is writing against the gnostics, who taught that marriage was evil and that no one should marry, that all created things were evil and so especially meat should not be eaten.  In that context we understand the verse as to pertaining to the gnostics.

A post such as this with no valid references has no validity.

[HRoberson]

In the historical context, Paul is writing against the gnostics, who taught that marriage was evil and that no one should marry, that all created things were evil and so especially meat should not be eaten.  In that context we understand the verse as to pertaining to the gnostics.

A post such as this with no valid references has no validity.

What sort of references did you want?

[Rudy2D]

What sort of references did you want?

Scientifically-disinterested sources.

[Catholica]

What sort of references did you want?

Scientifically-disinterested sources.

Tell ya what. If you give me the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding, then I will know what you mean by "scientifically disinterested", and then I can give you mine.

[Rudy2D]

What sort of references did you want?

Scientifically-disinterested sources.

Tell ya what. If you give me the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding, then I will know what you mean by "scientifically disinterested", and then I can give you mine.

Lessee--wiil Bruce Metzger do for starters?

[Nevertheless]

What is BCV?

Book
Chapter
Verse

[Nevertheless]

What sort of references did you want?

Scientifically-disinterested sources.

Tell ya what. If you give me the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding, then I will know what you mean by "scientifically disinterested", and then I can give you mine.

Lessee--wiil Bruce Metzger do for starters?

Simply writing someone's name does nothing to support your statements.

[trifecta]

Rudy,

Check out "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick, Penguin Books.  One volume, respected, cheap, and written by a Protestant (Anglican).

[Rudy2D]

Simply writing someone's name does nothing to support your statements.

O.K.  I assumed that Catholica wanted merely an example of a scientifically-disinterested scholar.  Best I can do is cite an article by Richard E. Oster, Jr. dealing with the understanding of δαιμονίων as the souls of the dead.  It was 30 years ago, when I was a student of his.

[AVZ]

Praying to saints is classical Christianity. It overlaps into many things. It is not an isolated tradition, but rather part of the whole Catholic belief system. It's not just the Roman Church, but Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and others as well.

Do you think they up and decided, arbitrarily and without reward, to say 'hey lets pray to saints'? The only noteworthy thing about the all too common argument you have presented is the underlying, audacious notion that the Catholic tradition isn't supported by anything.

A lot of practices of Catholicism is deduced from both written and unwritten traditions. These churches are the oldest in the world, I don't understand how somebody could be so quick to presuppose that they are idolatrous, especially when you could simply mosey on over to the Catholic Encyclopedia and learn all about it.

Here is where you are misinformed.
Praying to saints is not classical unwritten tradition. In the complete old testament and the complete new testament there is not a single instance where people pray to saints.
There is even not a shred of evidence that the early church prayed to saints or had statues in their churches.

We DO have however Jesus telling us how to pray, and that prayer which we are being thought is addressed to Our Father who is in heaven.
Jesus did not address His prayers to saints.

Praying to saints was instituted by the RCC many years later.
At the point of institution there was neither written or unwritten tradition that supported this.

Even in their best effort, the RCC still is unable to deposit a solid case based on scripture that makes praying to saints an acceptable notion.
All that can be deposited is based on tradition and extra-scriptural claims.
For example; if you want to pray to a saint than you first need to know if that saint is indeed a saint.
The RCC claims to know who are saints due to special revelation...a notion which itself is unsupported by scripture.

This is all bogus hearsay.

The first six centuries of Christianity are marked with many church leaders who deduced Mary as far more then merely the vessel of Christ. The actual veneration goes back to antiquity, the official doctrines and dogma just didn't come into place until much later.

This was not just a thing of 'the RCC' as you put it, this was Christendom collectively- Roman and Greek Christianity were largely the only sort there was, to say the least of the fact that it is still the majority of Christianity today.
People coming 1500 years later renouncing historical Christian beliefs, based on suspiciously simple readings of the Bible, raises an eyebrow: at least from those willing to notice.

Another thing to notice is that the Reformers never said jack about Mary, or even other doctrines such as Purgatory. This is likely because it would have caused all kinds of problems for them, the prime one being that they would simply lose any confrontation of it.
If you go to the CE and look up the veneration of Mary, you will see that the Church actually uses cross references many, many verses from the Bible. It is deduced, not literally read.


Catholic reverence to God is different from Protestant views. We see Mary as the Queen of Heaven, Jesus as the Lord, and the Saints as glorified servants of God.
We view it all as an actual Kingdom, you see. To say that it is idolatry is ridiculous, it is proper recognizance to the proper message.

Looks to me you are actually stating that the first 600 years of Christianity are seemingly more Protestant than Catholic.
It so appears that the RCC branched out from an early Protestant church.

Unfortunately you are cutting the church history short. What about the 6000 odd years of Old Testament history?
Prayer exists for as long as people exist, and the Bible tells us that Enoch was taken up into heaven.
Logically, if praying to saints is an established habit, people in the Old Testament prayed to Enoch?

Thus, looking at the complete historical records...of the 8000++ years, the only records we have of people praying to saints are the historical records of the RCC herself.

Now, you claim that I deposit bogus hearsay...but then what is tradition to you?
Wherever the RCC makes a claim of "tradition" I could as well say that is bogus hearsay because no documented history exists.
What we DO have however are the books of the Old and New Testament, which are subsequently wiped off the table by the RCC.

Point is...you do not have documented support for praying to saints. If you had, you would have deposited it here.
I on the other hand hold over 6000 years of church history in my hands where such a practice is not described.

You dismiss the Protestant claims because her 600 years of existence does not measure up against 1500 years of Catholicism.
May I then ask what indication you have how your mere 1500 years of "hearsay" measure up against 8000 years and why the word of your church should be taken more important than Gods Word?

[trifecta]

AVZ,

Except that there is plenty of evidence that early Christians prayed to saints.  We have scholarly evidence as
well as physical evidence.

You can use Google books and read:

Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity:
edited by Michel Robert Desjardins, Peter Richardson, S. Stephen G. Wilson, page 298

Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West
By David L. Eastman, pages 79-81


About about the Apocrypha?  Here we see a prayer to a slain hero (Judas Maccabeas, I think).
Keep it mind, it was part of Scripture until the Protestants took it out.
Even if you do not consider it Scripture, most all consider it a good historical record.
It shows that people in the OT times (albiet late OT times) were asking for intercession
of the departed.


Much Protestant-unique Biblical interpretation lacks because it fails to put the text (scripture)
in the context.

[AVZ]

AVZ,

Except that there is plenty of evidence that early Christians prayed to saints.  We have scholarly evidence as
well as physical evidence.

You can use Google books and read:

Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity:
edited by Michel Robert Desjardins, Peter Richardson, S. Stephen G. Wilson, page 298

Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West
By David L. Eastman, pages 79-81


About about the Apocrypha?  Here we see a prayer to a slain hero (Judas Maccabeas, I think).
Keep it mind, it was part of Scripture until the Protestants took it out.
Even if you do not consider it Scripture, most all consider it a good historical record.
It shows that people in the OT times (albiet late OT times) were asking for intercession
of the departed.


Much Protestant-unique Biblical interpretation lacks because it fails to put the text (scripture)
in the context.

You are so off the charts...miles away from being correct.

Look, if there really was PLENTY of evidence, I would have been thrown to death right now with al this evidence by the Catholics on this board.
Fact is, your "plenty" exists of 2 references: 1 a piece of pottery, the other the development of the Pauline cult. (did I say "cult"?)
Yep...plenty it is.

As for the prayer of Judas Maccabeus...was that a prayer to a slain hero or for a slain hero?

Your final remark is an absolute no-brainer and actually not even worth responding on.
But what the heck, enlighten me.
If you are so good in explaining context...I have asked a few questions about the text in Revelation a few times here in this thread.
None of the Catholics here can pick up on them? You may use the Catholic Bible translation.
Make it easy for you since the Protestant translations are apparently not very good.

[Catholica]

Simply writing someone's name does nothing to support your statements.

O.K.  I assumed that Catholica wanted merely an example of a scientifically-disinterested scholar.

That is silly.  When you make an argument, it is best to actually cite support that argument with something.  Quoting a random scholar is less than useless.

Best I can do is cite an article by Richard E. Oster, Jr. dealing with the understanding of δαιμονίων as the souls of the dead.  It was 30 years ago, when I was a student of his.

Let's have the article then!

While I wait, I will cite John McEvilly, in his book "An exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, p. 102":

To what then does the Apostle refer? He refers to the errors broached by the ancient heretics, Ebion, Saturninus, the Encraticae, the Marcionites, the Manichees, and the whole tribe of the early illuminati or Gnostics, who forbade marriage and the use of certain food, wine, &c., as in se evil and proceeding from an evil principle. That such doctrines were held by the heretics in question we have the authority of the ancient Fathers.  This is asserted by St. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians regarding the Ebionites; by St. Iraeneus (Lib. i. c. 22) and by Theodoret regarding Saturninus; by St. Chrysostom regarding the Encraticae and Marcionites; by St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Epiphanius regarding the Manichees. Such were the doctrines denounced by the Apostle as "the doctrines of devils."

In expounding this passage, McEvilly himself cites St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius.  In addition for word translation we could also cite every Protestant bible translator who ever lived, who have never translated the word by your source as anything but "demons" or "devils" and never "souls of the dead".  In addition we could cite the 10 other places in the NT where the same exact Greek word is used that would make absolutely no sense translated as "souls of the dead".  And even if the word was translated souls of the dead in 1 Tim. 4, at best it is vague as to what that doctrine actually is.  It is clear from a real historical analysis that St. Paul was dealing specifically with the gnostic heresy in 1 Tim.

I await your citation and exposition.

In the meantime, some light summer reading.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1 Ch. 24

Doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides.

1. Arising among these men, Saturninus (who was of that Antioch which is near Daphne) and Basilides laid hold of some favourable opportunities, and promulgated different systems of doctrine— the one in Syria, the other at Alexandria. Saturninus, like Menander, set forth one father unknown to all, who made angels, archangels, powers, and potentates. The world, again, and all things therein, were made by a certain company of seven angels. Man, too, was the workmanship of angels, a shining image bursting forth below from the presence of the supreme power; and when they could not, he says, keep hold of this, because it immediately darted upwards again, they exhorted each other, saying, "Let us make man after our image and likeness." Genesis 1:26 He was accordingly formed, yet was unable to stand erect, through the inability of the angels to convey to him that power, but wriggled [on the ground] like a worm. Then the power above taking pity upon him, since he was made after his likeness, sent forth a spark of life, which gave man an erect posture, compacted his joints, and made him live. He declares, therefore, that this spark of life, after the death of a man, returns to those things which are of the same nature with itself, and the rest of the body is decomposed into its original elements.

2. He has also laid it down as a truth, that the Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by supposition, a visible man; and he maintained that the God of the Jews was one of the angels; and, on this account, because all the powers wished to annihilate his father, Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews, but to save such as believe in him; that is, those who possess the spark of his life. This heretic was the first to affirm that two kinds of men were formed by the angels—the one wicked, and the other good. And since the demons assist the most wicked, the Saviour came for the destruction of evil men and of the demons, but for the salvation of the good. They declare also, that marriage and generation are from Satan. 1 Timothy 4:3. Many of those, too, who belong to his school, abstain from animal food, and draw away multitudes by a feigned temperance of this kind. They hold, moreover, that some of the prophecies were uttered by those angels who made the world, and some by Satan; whom Saturninus represents as being himself an angel, the enemy of the creators of the world, but especially of the God of the Jews.

[Rudy2D]

Simply writing someone's name does nothing to support your statements.

O.K.  I assumed that Catholica wanted merely an example of a scientifically-disinterested scholar.

That is silly.  When you make an argument, it is best to actually cite support that argument with something.  Quoting a random scholar is less than useless.

You don't even know what scientific disinterestedness is, and you ridicule me when I give you what you literally requested? 

[Catholica]

Simply writing someone's name does nothing to support your statements.

O.K.  I assumed that Catholica wanted merely an example of a scientifically-disinterested scholar.

That is silly.  When you make an argument, it is best to actually cite support that argument with something.  Quoting a random scholar is less than useless.

You don't even know what scientific disinterestedness is, and you ridicule me when I give you what you literally requested? 

No response, to what I wrote, I see.  No actual citations, no actual source text from said source, nothing but a 30-year old memory of something that apparently isn't in print, as far as I know; an isolated unspecified, unverified hypothesis from a teacher at a seminary in America, according to the witness of one person on a forum (you).

This is what I literally requested:

" the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding"

You responded with a random biblical scholar.

[Rudy2D]

Simply writing someone's name does nothing to support your statements.

O.K.  I assumed that Catholica wanted merely an example of a scientifically-disinterested scholar.

That is silly.  When you make an argument, it is best to actually cite support that argument with something.  Quoting a random scholar is less than useless.

You don't even know what scientific disinterestedness is, and you ridicule me when I give you what you literally requested? 

No response, to what I wrote, I see.  No actual citations, no actual source text from said source, nothing but a 30-year old memory of something that apparently isn't in print, as far as I know; an isolated unspecified, unverified hypothesis from a teacher at a seminary in America, according to the witness of one person on a forum (you).

This is what I literally requested:

" the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding"

You responded with a random biblical scholar.

Here is your request, verbatim:

Tell ya what. If you give me the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding, then I will know what you mean by "scientifically disinterested", and then I can give you mine.

(My bold)

As I said, it was thirty years ago.  I cannot locate the article.  Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea culpa (beats chest).

[Catholica]

Simply writing someone's name does nothing to support your statements.

O.K.  I assumed that Catholica wanted merely an example of a scientifically-disinterested scholar.

That is silly.  When you make an argument, it is best to actually cite support that argument with something.  Quoting a random scholar is less than useless.

You don't even know what scientific disinterestedness is, and you ridicule me when I give you what you literally requested? 

No response, to what I wrote, I see.  No actual citations, no actual source text from said source, nothing but a 30-year old memory of something that apparently isn't in print, as far as I know; an isolated unspecified, unverified hypothesis from a teacher at a seminary in America, according to the witness of one person on a forum (you).

This is what I literally requested:

" the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding"

You responded with a random biblical scholar.

Here is your request, verbatim:

Tell ya what. If you give me the scientifically disinterested sources for your belief and your understanding, then I will know what you mean by "scientifically disinterested", and then I can give you mine.

(My bold)

As I said, it was thirty years ago.  I cannot locate the article.  Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea culpa (beats chest).

Hey, I understand, it was thirty years ago.  How about someone who has confirmed what he said?  Someone in 2000 years of Christianity.  Anyone.

[Rudy2D]

Where are your scientifically-disinterested sources confirming the validity of praying to departed saints (now that you what scientific disinterestedness means?

[Catholica]

Where are your scientifically-disinterested sources confirming the validity of praying to departed saints (now that you what scientific disinterestedness means?

If you can show me a scientifically-disinterested sources confirming that Jesus is God, then I will give you a scientifically disinterested source confirming the validity of praying to Saints.

But you can't.

That's because these are articles of faith.  Beliefs are not based on human opinions, but on the revelation of God.  That is why I cling to the Church Jesus founded, which produced, and preserved the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, and was made by Jesus to be the visible source by which we can know the truth.

A belief by faith requires not the opinion of scholars, but the gift of God, and the revelation of God, which has been preserved by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

[Rudy2D]

Beliefs are not based on human opinions, but on the revelation of God.

OKAY.  Give me BCV for God's revealing that one should pray to saints and I will do it.

[Catholica]

Beliefs are not based on human opinions, but on the revelation of God.

OKAY.  Give me BCV for God's revealing that one should pray to saints and I will do it.

Give me a BCV saying that all practices must be commanded in scripture.  Also give me a BCV listing the books that constitute scripture.  Give me a BCV that all revelation is recorded in scripture.

That being said, there is evidence that the saints in heaven offer our prayers to God.  Revelation 5:8.  It's already been covered in this thread or another recent one.  They must be offering the prayers of someone, referred to in scripture as "the holy ones".  This is symbolic of the intercession of the saints.

[Rudy2D]

. . , there is evidence that the saints in heaven offer our prayers to God.  Revelation 5:8.  It's already been covered in this thread or another recent one.  They must be offering the prayers of someone, referred to in scripture as "the holy ones".  This is symbolic of the intercession of the saints.

Rv. 5:8

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;"

Prayers of the saints (saints being the entirety of believers), not to the saints.  You got your prepositions backwards.   

[Catholica]

. . , there is evidence that the saints in heaven offer our prayers to God.  Revelation 5:8.  It's already been covered in this thread or another recent one.  They must be offering the prayers of someone, referred to in scripture as "the holy ones".  This is symbolic of the intercession of the saints.

Rv. 5:8

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;"

Prayers of the saints (saints being the entirety of believers), not to the saints.  You got your prepositions backwards.   

The elders are offering the prayers of the saints to God.  Somehow they are offering the prayers of others to God.  That is intercession.  The elders are saints, human souls before the throne.  Therefore this image is symbolic of their offering intercession.

Catholics understand "praying to a saint" is shorthand for "asking a saint to pray for us to God".  They offer our prayers to God in their most holy way and so intercede for us.

[Rudy2D]

. . , there is evidence that the saints in heaven offer our prayers to God.  Revelation 5:8.  It's already been covered in this thread or another recent one.  They must be offering the prayers of someone, referred to in scripture as "the holy ones".  This is symbolic of the intercession of the saints.

That's your opinion.  I don't see it that way. 

Rv. 5:8

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;"

Prayers of the saints (saints being the entirety of believers), not to the saints.  You got your prepositions backwards.   

The elders are offering the prayers of the saints to God.  Somehow they are offering the prayers of others to God.  That is intercession.  The elders are saints, human souls before the throne.  Therefore this image is symbolic of their offering intercession.

Catholics understand "praying to a saint" is shorthand for "asking a saint to pray for us to God".  They offer our prayers to God in their most holy way and so intercede for us.

I see no "doctrine of intercession" there; you're reaching, twisting symbolism and metaphor to support a blatant heresy.  You're missing the point entirely, i.e.--the prayers of believers are sweet incense to God.

[trifecta]

Rudy,

I know it's hard to answer six people at once, so, cheers to you for trying to so.

Firstly,  I must agree with Catholica that not everything you believe is in the NT.  My favorite example
is the Trinity.  We really don't have much mention of it (and never the word Trinity) in the NT, so where do we get
this idea?  The church.    Several what we call "Church Fathers" explained this important concept for us.

Now, to me . . .

Look, if there really was PLENTY of evidence, I would have been thrown to death right now with al this evidence by the Catholics on this board.

Catholics don't know everything.   Look deeper.

Fact is, your "plenty" exists of 2 references: 1 a piece of pottery, the other the development of the Pauline cult. (did I say "cult"?)
Yep...plenty it is.

I also mentioned Henry Chadwick (in another post).  Is the Encyclopedia Brittanica evidence, although it is just one book?  Of course, it is.  It  draws on evidence that others have presented.   I've given you a Brittanica and a Colliers.  If I read about something in both of these, I'd probably believe it.   

Your final remark is an absolute no-brainer and actually not even worth responding on.


But what the heck, enlighten me.
If you are so good in explaining context...I have asked a few questions about the text in Revelation a few times here in this thread.

Revelation is a hard one for everyone.  I haven't read your questions on Revelation.  We do have some latitude when it comes
to certain theological issues, such as eschatology.    Explaining context is not easy either, and can't be explained in a few
sentences; nevertheless, as you know, context is very important.

None of the Catholics here can pick up on them? You may use the Catholic Bible translation.
Make it easy for you since the Protestant translations are apparently not very good.

I don't have a problem with Protestant versions of the Bible (although NIV is rather lame), but with interpretation of it.
Scripture is not a a how-to book, so it needs to be interpreted.  The Protestant fathers picked up the newly-printed
Bible and pretended that their views where the same as the early churches (to give them legitimacy.)
  While we are the early church so our interpretations and traditions can be trusted.   We Orthodox are highly resistant to change because we do not want to defile the treasure that God has given us. 

[Rudy2D]

Trinity?  What Trinity?  BCV.   

[trifecta]

Matthew 28:19.

The Bible itself says the truth comes from the church (I Tim3 :15), not only a book.

Church is community, not a history book.

trifecta

[Rudy2D]

Matthew 28:19.

The Bible itself says the truth comes from the church (I Tim3 :15), not only a book.

Church is community, not a history book.

trifecta

Matthew 28:19:  "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

That passage defines neither the nature of the three nor their relationship to one-another.

1Timothy 3:14-15:  "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

That passage in no way says that "truth comes from the church."  Truth antecedes the church; it does not procede therefrom.

[winsome]

Matthew 28:19.

The Bible itself says the truth comes from the church (I Tim3 :15), not only a book.

Church is community, not a history book.

trifecta

Matthew 28:19:  "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

That passage defines neither the nature of the three nor their relationship to one-another.

1Timothy 3:14-15:  "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

That passage in no way says that "truth comes from the church."  Truth antecedes the church; it does not procede therefrom.

I suggest you read this thread http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/infallibility-74755/

[Rudy2D]

I suggest you read this thread http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/infallibility-74755/

I'll pass.  Having been born and raised in the RCC I have no interest in RCC apologetics.

[winsome]

I suggest you read this thread http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/infallibility-74755/

I'll pass.  Having been born and raised in the RCC I have no interest in RCC apologetics.

Why are you posting in the forum then?

[trifecta]

Matthew 28:19:  "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."



That passage defines neither the nature of the three nor their relationship to one-another.

True, but it connects the the three way in an indivisible way.   Again, not every truth is found in the Bible.  Where is the truth? I Tim 3:15.

1Timothy 3:14-15:  "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

That passage in no way says that "truth comes from the church."  Truth antecedes the church; it does not procede therefrom.

So?  The truth is housed in the church--the truth's foundation is in the church.  That's what is says.  What else can it mean?
How can it "in no way" mean that? Is it talking about the origins of truth?  Not exactly, but , it is talking about where the truth can be found. 
You simply want to take that clause away. What does that clause mean to you?    Apparently, something to be ignored.

Rudy, you make the mistake that Protestants do.  You look at the Bible in isolation to everything else, which the ancients never would do.

You read the Bible as a book thrown from heaven.  Then, like Luther, tear out the parts you don't like. 

Yet Jesus promises the church and uses people (e.g., Apostles) to pass it on.  Where does it say that the NT would guide us?

For that matter, why does the NT exist?  It is a creation of the church in reaction to some heresies at the time. 
Please don't ignore history, God is working through it.