Do you even know what apostolic succession is?

Here's where your wrong, though; you said "the majority of our beliefs are yours as well except Catholics have beliefs that don't pertain to the Bible.

To set our reality;

Protestants have beliefs not in the Bible; its just that these beliefs are about the Bible, i.e. the inerrancy of the Gospel of John.

Actually, I might say that the way in which Protestant beliefs are justified is so foreign to the way that Catholic beliefs are justified is that, while the conclusions might be the same, the mode through which they were developed means that Catholic beliefs and Protestant beliefs, even when they overlap, are radically different.



That's because you haven't been using Scripture.



You're begging question; you assume that our beliefs must come from the Bible. If that is so, how do you justify your belief in the inerrancy of the Gospel of John?



You're not really understanding what is meant by Tradition vs. tradition. "T"radition as opposed to "t"radition are totally different things. A tradition is just a way of doing things; Tradition is the living Gospel in the Church as taught by the Apostles which the Church has safeguarded through the working of the Holy Spirit. Tradition was never created by the Church, only developed and taught by the Church.



My "version" of "Church" is the historical one.



Uhm... what?



This doesn't refute my argument; you're just telling me I'm wrong because I'm wrong.

But our beliefs of what the Bible is actually saying are very similar, that was my point.

I agree, we did justify our beliefs in different ways. But lets just keep on focusing on our Love for Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior, who cares how we justify that.


Yeah, thats what I'm saying. We sort of got into talking about interpritation of scripture without actually using scripture.



We can both agree that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Bible would continue to be perfect and faultless.


When the Pharisees taught tradition dont you think they believed that it was of God and not of men?



Mine was not historical? (Biblical too...) People accepted Christ early all over the world, from areas surrounding Jerusalem to Malta to Rome. Werent these people who accepted Christ and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ all under the Church of Jesus Christ?





I'm telling you you're wrong because Jesus was against it. Especially elevating one man over another.

So what?



Who cares? I'm sure Jesus does.



There is an obvious problem to trying to use Scripture to justify how the interpretation of Scripture should happen. It would be circular, an assumption, and begging the question.



That we agree doesn't matter.



No. The Pharisees knew what came from men and what came from God.



Yours is historical insofar as it broke off from the Catholic Church, which has historical ties in and of itself to Jesus through the Apostles. Your church has ties through my Church. Hence, yours is historical by virtue of being historically connected to my church, and nothing else. It isn't historically connected to Jesus by virtue of itself.



The only one elevating these men and women is God. That we venerate these men and women whom God so chooses to elevate is due to its being by God's grace.

"You loved me, you worshipped me, you spread the gospel to many people, but you didn't justify the gospel of John properly, sorry."



If Scripture is (as we both agree) flawless due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then it is fine to use Scripture to prove Scripture to another Christian. This however would not work on an athiest.




See above.



The same way you "know" what comes from men and God. The Pharisees took part in traditions outside of scripture because they believed it was proper in God's eyes... These are Pharisees, seriously, they arent just random dudes, these are guys that knew the Torah front to back.



There is no "my Church breaking off from your Church" Our Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. If I accept Jesus Christ today and so does some guy in Zimbabwe we fall under the same Church. We do not have to call ourselves Catholic, or have others call us Catholic. The same way people in Malta accepted Jesus at the same time as people in the middle east, they all fell under the same Church which is the Church of Jesus Christ. We become apart of this Church by the acceptance of Him as our Lord and Savior.


Again, Pharisees. Very similar beliefs as the Pharisees in those times.

I was considering a conversion to Catholicism a few weeks ago but decided against it and one of the reasons was asking Saints to pray us. Now I'm not here to point fingers or anything like that, I don't think asking Saints to pray for you is "wrong" but I think it's pointless.

People choose who Saints are. God chose Jesus Christ to be our one and only saviour. Now, would you rather pray TO Jesus Christ or ask a Saint to pray for you?

According to Catholic.org there are over 10,000 Saints worldwide, but there is only one God and He has more power than all of them combined, so I ask you, why would you bother asking the Saints to pray for you?

People do not choose Saints. God reveals who the Saints are.

Also, people don't just ask the saints for prayer. Catholics more often than not give prayers directly to God and his son.

Why ask anyone to pray for you? Guess you shouldn't bother to ask for prayers for someone during a youth group or other church get togethers or here in the prayer request forum. According to your logic, it's pointless

You're ignoring my point. How do you know the truth wasn't really recorded in the Gospel of Peter, or of Thomas, or of Judas?



Actually, no. The fact that we disagree about how our knowledge of the inerrancy of Scripture comes through different forms means our use of Scripture to each other are on different dimensions.

And I'm being very generous in rhetorically presupposing your assumption is knowledge.



And these Catholics knew Scripture front to back who knew that Scripture didn't tell them that the Gospel of John is inspired. Nor would they settle for such obviously fallacious reasoning, anyhow.



You're not in my Church, and that's just a fact of reality. I suppose I must thank you for including me in your concept of church, which is nice (because hey, then I don't lose either way, right?), but speaking in all honesty, you aren't in the Catholic Church, and I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church. You aren't in the Church just because you say you are, and you aren't the Church just because you say you are.



What? Huh? I don't get your point at all here.



No they don't. That there are Saints in Heaven is revealed by God to the Church. The Church recognizes, but does not make, Saints (in this sense).



Well, first, I don't ask Jesus to pray for me. I pray to Him.

Second, see below.



If that is so, why would you bother asking anyone to pray for?

Have you read them? Lol. Logically you can agree they do not belong.



We both believe it's through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.



How does this settle your agrument that the Jews coming up with traditions outside of the Bible that were shot down by Jesus Christ is any different from Catholic's coming up with traditions outside of the Bible? If anything that statement goes against it because not every form of Jewish literature that is inspired actually says "this should be in the Bible btw" and yet they still believed it, and it was still correct. Their rituals and traditions not pertaining to Scripture however were not.


I never tried to claim I was apart of what you believe to be "the Church." My point is that if I accept Jesus Christ today, and some guy in Zimbabwe does too then me and that person would both fall under the same Church and that's the Church of Jesus Christ. So yes, "Your safe either way" is right I suppose because Jesus died for your sins too... And Mine.



All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God, but thats just my interpritation. Men who had super good works and those who did not. Only Christ can save any of us.

Then let me attack your position from a nihilistic point of view. Let us suppose I am a Christian who believes that the Gospel of Thomas, but not the Gospel of John, is inspired and inerrant, the true word of God.

Prove me wrong. And don't think to say the Gospel of Thomas doesn't fit; I can interpret away whatever i want (just as you can).

Go crazy. Use any argument you want.



But, and this is an important 'but,' you are assuming it was by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My conclusion that it was the Holy Spirit is grounded in my belief that the Church couldn't possibly have not been guided by the Holy Spirit.

Here's my reasoning;

Jesus is God --> God founded the Church --> God couldn't found a fallible Church --> the Church said X is the canon of Scripture --> the Church is infallible through the Holy Spirit --> therefore X is the canon of Scripture

Here's your reasoning;

1a)
the Church gave you X canon of Scripture --> you assume that the Holy Spirit was at work --> therefore X is the canon of Scripture

1b)
the Church needs Scripture --> therefore the Holy Spirit worked to give you the canon X of Scripture that you assume the Holy Spirit worked to give you (and not, say Canon Y or Canon

You see how my reasoning is entirely removed from yours?



The canon of Scripture even for the Jews was a Tradition outside of Scripture, and necessarily so.

This in itself destroys your argument that necessarily everything the Jews believed came from their Scripture.

Further, the Jewish canon of Scripture was always being added to up to the time of Christ. Obviously that adding to Scripture, though it was never sanctioned in Scripture (for instance, the books of Moses never said to add the writing of the Prophets).

Moreover, the Tradition as developed by the Jews is separate from the traditions that the Pharisees practiced. Capital 'T' Tradition is on par with Scripture; we might equivocate Scripture to being Tradition. The Tradition of Judaism is essentially the corpus of orthodox doctrines of Judaism. Same with Christianity; Christian Tradition are those beliefs that form the corpus of Christian doctrine, i.e. the divinity of Christ.

Little 't' traditions, on the other hands, are conventional practices of this Tradition. To cut out all tradition is to cut out your entire method of worshipping God and studying of Scripture. These traditions are outside of Scripture just as well as Traditions, but they are not coextensive with each other in any sense. It isn't a doctrine of Catholicism that Mass must happen in the order that it does; the liturgy is a matter of tradition. However, it is a doctrine that transubstantiation occurs, just as well as it is a doctrine that Scripture is inerrant.

What Jesus did shoot down was not tradition itself; He shot down tradition that preceded Tradition, for instance the popular Pharisaic practice of not helping people on the Sabbath; this was a perversion of the Tradition of the Sabbath. The Pharisees were in fact very pious, but at times they tried to make themselves not pious in the eyes of God but in the eyes of people.

So, it should be demonstrated that your assertion that Catholic doctrine is no more than tradition is, in fact, just silly. Catholics have never believed or taught that what Catholics believe necessarily must come from Scripture in the first place. Yes, much of Catholic doctrines can be supported in Scripture (in fact, a great majority is by Catholic interpretation), but Catholics do not limit themselves to Scripture. Neither do Protestants. The challenge is silly and hollow.



As I said, you aren't in the Church just because you say you are, meaning that what the Church is must be figured out. And no, you can't just look at Scripture, because that would be ahistorical and anachronistic. If you're going to look at Scripture, you'll have to look at where that Scripture came from. It is a historical fact that the Bible didn't plop down out of Heaven ready to be used by the Apostles. The actual history of the Bible is, in fact, uncomfortably messy.



Do you think this contradicts what I've said?

Yes, men have fallen short; but that doesn't mean God can't raise us back up. In fact, that's the whole point of Christ saving any.

Yes, I hate when logic is lacking as well.



Yes, but you left out mine which would also say Jesus is God ---> God founded the Church
However I would add something such as ---> Men are full of fail and can make up things outside Christ's teachings which everyone agrees to be true and claim they are apart of the same Church. Jesus was clear this sort of thing would happen.



Sure I agree with that.


Anything I say will just cause more arguements outside of our first debate, which is expected but meh. It was fun.



Protestant's got it figured out. The Church is for all those who have accepted Jesus Christ as obvious through Scripture. By Scripture alone (which I understand you dont believe in) wouldn't you accept that as the most obvious suggestion to this apparantly confusing dillema we call Eternal Salvation? But not by Scripture alone men who consider themselves spiritually higher than other men can say what they like and claim it is inspired.



I just wish that God would have made this clearer to everyone through Scripture and not just Catholics. Shucks. If only the Bible was a bit clearer on humans becoming Saints and us praying for them I would be able to believe it.

This doesn't prove anything. It isn't a logical necessity that the Gospel of John is inspired where the Gospel of Thomas isn't.



And how do you know it wasn't the Protestants who arose teaching new doctrines?

Further, you must remember the Catholic definition of the Church is not the same one Protestants use. So, the Church can be infallible because it isn't only the body of believers.



According to who? You? Protestants?



1) What Scripture?

2) Who says the Church is what you say it is?

3) Scripture isn't obvious (even if you know what it is)

4) "Accepted" Jesus Christ? That isn't even a formulation in Scripture!



Neither do you; *cough*Gospel of John*cough*



This is an absurd question. Don't you think it's obvious that peas are yellow on Mars because of the trucks the Alexandrians drive in the ocean?



You're assuming that we're limited to Scripture.