Let The Debate Begin: EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM

[dante1]

Yeah, that's total bullshit.

The Catholic Church and Catholic people gave the world The Renaissance.

No basically the Italian people, specifically a handful did that. And in many cases the church were against most of their teachings until they decided they could use some of them.

[PhillyFlyers]

Wait, you really don't know this, are you serious. You are unaware of the evil of many popes and catholic hierarchy. I can't believe this, this is common historical knowledge. You don't know this, holy Christ. Philly do a search, I suggest start with the Medici family. Why in gods name to I even discuss anything with these people? why?, they know absolutely nothing about almost everything. How can anybody not know this?

The Medicis were one family in the middle ages. By that time the Church was already 15 centuries old. You equating them with "early Catholic history" doesn't jibe with the facts.

[PhillyFlyers]

No basically the Italian people, specifically a handful did that. And in many cases the church were against most of their teachings until they decided they could use some of them.

Yes. Italian people. And what are Italians? We are Catholic.

BTW artists like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael etc etc were largely funded through the Church.

[dante1]

What don't you understand?

Did you not read me correctly when I said this:



As you can see, I've already stated that the books of the bible were already in existence before they were put together to make the book we call the Holy Bible.

Really, what is it that you don't understand here?

Yes, they were there before the catholic church, so how could the church have come before those writings. Guys like you will be wrong and then you will twist and turn in order to find an out. The bottom line is you said the Catholic church came before the bible. And that is completely false. The catholic church was based on christ and the writings. Unbelievable. I liked it better when you ignored me.

Did you ever hear about the marshmallow test, absolutely not I know. But, it applies to perfectly to you.

[PhillyFlyers]

Yes, they were there before the catholic church, so how could the church have come before those writings. Guys like you will be wrong and then you will twist and turn in order to find an out. The bottom line is you said the Catholic church came before the bible. And that is completely false. The catholic church was based on christ and the writings. Unbelievable. I liked it better when you ignored me.

Did you ever hear about the marshmallow test, absolutely not I know. But, it applies to perfectly to you.

What is wrong with you?

Do you have a learning disorder?

I am not saying the Church came before the Old Testament books.

I am saying that the Church came before the existence of the book we today call the Holy Bible.

I can't believe you can't understand me

[dante1]

Yes. Italian people. And what are Italians? We are Catholic.

BTW artists like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael etc etc were largely funded through the Church.

again wrong, not all Italians are catholic, again you will attempt to make a wrong argument correct by changing it just a little bit. don't you realize how obvious you are? dont you realize that 90% of the people reading your bs are shaking their heads in disbelief. you philly jr have a negative power, you are almost always wrong about almost every subject.

[PhillyFlyers]

again wrong, not all Italians are catholic, again you will attempt to make a wrong argument correct by changing it just a little bit. don't you realize how obvious you are? dont you realize that 90% of the people reading your bs are shaking their heads in disbelief. you philly jr have a negative power, you are almost always wrong about almost every subject.

Vast majority of Italians are Catholic and can rightly be called a Catholic people.

[dante1]

What is wrong with you?

Do you have a learning disorder?

I am not saying the Church came before the Old Testament books.

I am saying that the Church came before the existence of the book we today call the Holy Bible.

I can't believe you can't understand me

oh so you changed your argument just a bit, that is okay. The truth is the writings were centuries before the church, call it a bible or whatever you want the faith of the christian people is and was supposed to be on the writings now called the bible. Your argument that the church predated the writings is bogus and now you finally realize it and attempt to save your argument with facts that are irrelevant to the original argument. like I said philly people look through this. so this discussion with you is finished, and again you are wrong.

[PhillyFlyers]

oh so you changed your argument just a bit, that is okay. The truth is the writings were centuries before the church, call it a bible or whatever you want the faith of the christian people is and was supposed to be on the writings now called the bible. Your argument that the church predated the writings is bogus and now you finally realize it and attempt to save your argument with facts that are irrelevant to the original argument. like I said philly people look through this. so this discussion with you is finished, and again you are wrong.

I did not change my argument at all.

You are an illiterate asshole.

[dante1]

I did not change my argument at all.

You are an illiterate asshole.

Right, you without a hs diploma and myself with advanced degrees would make me illiterate. You haven't two clues about almost every subject you personally introduce. Now you are talking about religion and catholicism and you are totally oblivious to the unbelievable evil and horrendous deeds perpetrated by the early and even mid catholic church. You have never heard of the Medici family? How can that possibly be. And the proof is not too long ago you asked me to tell you some of the evil perpetrated by the catholic church which means you haven't and hadn't a clue. How is that possible? How do you discuss subjects when you only have your opinions and your opinions are always wrong. BTW, am I the only guy that claims this? Nope, just about everybody tells you this could your two brain cells have a conversation and say....hmmm maybe I am an idiot.

Btw, your perseverance in ignoring me lasted what two days, check out the marshmallow test it applies perfectly to you. Look it up. And btw look up that incredibly nice ITALIAN family I mentioned.

[dante1]

You know how very much I hate to make this proclamation but I am afraid it is true. This philly guy is actually dumber than the original rifle. I know it is hard to believe but just read his incredible bs, and then if somebody corrects him he always has an argument, and it is always a stupid argument. Yep two complete idiots. Only one big difference, the original rifle was also evil he is a fundamentalist protestant who commented he would love to kill all Catholics and philly is a staunch Catholic who would be a victim of rifle the first. Other than that these two could be brothers.

[dante1]

OMG, I completely forgot about the Inquisition. Now tell me how many people living in a civilized country over the age of 15 never heard of the Inquisition, maybe a dozen. Well philly is one, yeah he asked me to tell him about one evil committed by the Catholic Church. Hey philly, you moron the Inquisition lasted for hundreds of years. What did you think that word meant, maybe you thought it was a group of nice nuns asking questions.

[packerd_00]

OMG, I completely forgot about the Inquisition. Now tell me how many people living in a civilized country over the age of 15 never heard of the Inquisition, maybe a dozen. Well philly is one, yeah he asked me to tell him about one evil committed by the Catholic Church. Hey philly, you moron the Inquisition lasted for hundreds of years. What did you think that word meant, maybe you thought it was a group of nice nuns asking questions.

And the guy has the audacity to call the Englsh the murdering scum of the earth. Wasnt it the Romans that crucified Jesus on the cross,or am I wrong.

[Seaweed]

The Bible came from the Catholic Church. The books of the Old Testament were written before Christianity, yes, but it the Catholic Church who put all those books together to make what we call today, the Holy Bible.

The Bible is not the authority of the Christian religion, the Catholic Church is and always has been. The Catholic Church existed well before anyone ever heard of the Bible.

The Catholic Church is the pillar of truth in Christianity not the Bible. Scripture even says so.

1 Timothy 3:15



Then you run into all sorts of other problems if you go strictly by the Bible instead of the true Church. For example....

Scripture being based on interpretation instead of the Catholic Church leads to confusion. For if I think your interpretation is wrong, I could simply start an entirely new protestant church based on my interpretations. This has been a disaster for protestants.

Today, there are over 1,000 protestant denominations. Which one has the correct teaching and authority to teach given by Christ Himself? The answer is none of them.

Then of course, if you go strictly by the Bible and that salvation depends upon the Bible you of course run into problems like....what happens to people that are illiterate? Not only now in the present time but in the past as well? Did God condemn to the Eternal Fire simply because they couldn't read?

What about the Christians who lived and existed in the time before the Bible came into existence? What happened to them? Were they also condemned because they did not have the Bible?

The answer to both questions is no because the Bible itself is not, has never been, nor at any point will ever be the authority in Christianity. Only the Catholic Church can make that claim.

There is only one true Church and only one true faith on this earth. It is Roman Catholic.

Well said. It is important to remember that the Bible we have today is the Product of the Church, and not that the Church is the product of the Bible.

To address Dante, who claims that the Church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, however if you look at the passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10, they clearly indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead. Since the apostles abolished circumsicion (Gal. 5 1-6) the observance of Sabbath must have been abolished. Old Testament ceremonial laws are no longer binding in the New Covenant ( New Testament) when Jesus arrives. Faith and morals are, but when somebody quotes the Old Testament scriptures such as verses where it condemns cutting your hair or such, those are ceremonial laws that are no longer binding in the New Covenant.


The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.

The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

Tertullian
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).

The Didascalia
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).

Origen
"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).

Victorinus
"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).

Eusebius of Caesarea
"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).
"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).

Athanasius
"The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).

Council of Laodicea
"Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians" (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]).

John Chrysostom
"[W]hen he [God] said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath— ‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’—he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10-11]. . . . For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill. . . . You shall not commit adultery. . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition" (Homilies on the Statutes 12:9 [A.D. 387]).
"You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?" (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).
"The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath" (Homilies on Philippians 10 [A.D. 402]).

The Apostolic Constitutions
"And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).

Augustine
"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian. . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle [Paul] describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished" (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [A.D. 412]).

Pope Gregory I
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).

[Seaweed]

Yes. Italian people. And what are Italians? We are Catholic.

BTW artists like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael etc etc were largely funded through the Church.

The Catholic Church is the number one charity institution on the planet, and has given more to the needy than any other organization or institution. The Catholic Church gave us the education system, hospitals, and art.

[Seaweed]

When Jesus was alive, where were the sick people? Were they in hospitals? Of course not. There were no hospitals at the time of Christ. The sick were huddled at the side of the road and in the outskirts, and that is where Jesus cured them. The essence of health care and caring for the sick emerged through the Church, through religious orders, in response to the value and dignity that the Gospel assigns to each human life. Education was reserve for ONLY the nobility. It was the Catholic Church who championed to make education available to everyone. The entire Western World's education system owes to the pioneering of the Church's role. In the US, the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students every day, at a cost of 10 billion dollars a year to the parents and parishes. If there weren't Catholic Schools these students would be educated in public school and would cost 18 billion dollars. The Catholic education system is in fact saving American taxpayers 18 billion dollars. In spite of the Church's faults, recent scandals, inefficiencies, the contribution to the local, national, and global scale remains phenomenal. Americans do not hate the Catholic Church. Millions of Americans hate what they believe to be the Catholic Church. Wherever you find Catholics, you find an enormous amount of people making contributions to the community. When the Gospel is lived today, it has the power to transform society and our lives in a way unimaginable to many.

[Seaweed]

At last, the biggest argument between Catholics and conservative fundamentalist Protestants. What is most important the bible or laws made basically by early Catholics. They are both man made laws even though most Protestants believe the bible was written by inspired by God humans. This is a huge argument between the P and C both have valid points but I think in the long run the Protestants have to win this argument. If a certain holy book is the foundation of a religion how can man change what is written in the book. One very famous example and just about every denomination changed this law. The bible states very clearly to keep holy the sabbath that is a 100% fact. Well very few denominations do that, I can think of only one but probably more. The sabbath is beyond a doubt Saturday, look it up if you don't believe me. Most Christians with the exception of the Seventh Day Adventists worship and keep holy Sunday. A absolute disregard for the commandment. How did that happen? A bunch of catholics decided that the day of resurrection was more important than the Sabbath? They changed the Jewish and more importantly the bible teaching.

Protestants = Church built by man. Effect: Hundreds of thousands denominations all claiming to be the true church.
Catholic= Church built by Christ. Effect: Only 1 Catholic Church, remaining the same for over 2000 years, as Jesus promised that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Would Jesus build a Church that would teach wrongfully? I did not think so either.

Going to copy and paste this and you will get a better understanding of what Tradition and Scripture means.

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

What is Tradition?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

"Commandments of men"
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

[packerd_00]

Im not anti Catholic by the way,my mums Irish Catholic.

[PokinSmot]

there should be a thread discussion about Monotheism vs. Polytheism

[lucullus]

The Catholic Church is the number one charity institution on the planet, and has given more to the needy than any other organization or institution. The Catholic Church gave us the education system, hospitals, and art.

Big lie

[brooks85]

there should be a thread discussion about Monotheism vs. Polytheism

No need. One is bullshit, the other is complete bullshit.

You can sum evolution vs creationism in one easy question but you have think hard about it...

Who would win in a fight, a dog or a fire-breathing dragon?

or

What travels faster, an airplane or the Star Trek Enterprise?

or

What is more destructive, a stick of dynamite or the Death Star?

[lucullus]

When Jesus was alive, where were the sick people? Were they in hospitals? Of course not. There were no hospitals at the time of Christ. The sick were huddled at the side of the road and in the outskirts, and that is where Jesus cured them. The essence of health care and caring for the sick emerged through the Church, through religious orders, in response to the value and dignity that the Gospel assigns to each human life. Education was reserve for ONLY the nobility. It was the Catholic Church who championed to make education available to everyone. The entire Western World's education system owes to the pioneering of the Church's role. In the US, the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students every day, at a cost of 10 billion dollars a year to the parents and parishes. If there weren't Catholic Schools these students would be educated in public school and would cost 18 billion dollars. The Catholic education system is in fact saving American taxpayers 18 billion dollars. In spite of the Church's faults, recent scandals, inefficiencies, the contribution to the local, national, and global scale remains phenomenal. Americans do not hate the Catholic Church. Millions of Americans hate what they believe to be the Catholic Church. Wherever you find Catholics, you find an enormous amount of people making contributions to the community. When the Gospel is lived today, it has the power to transform society and our lives in a way unimaginable to many.

You can't prove that like you can't prove the fairy tales, fictitious characters, and fictitious events that occur over and over again in the bible. Those inserted falsehoods alone show that the bible is a program for controlling the masses (as is commonly believed by the masses today).

The catholic church did not make education available to every one, that is another bold faced lie. In ancient society there were public libraries and teachers of various kinds. Again, they try to erase ancient history to promote there program. Insidious, to say the least.

[Seaweed]

You can't prove that like you can't prove the fairy tales, fictitious characters, and fictitious events that occur over and over again in the bible. Those inserted falsehoods alone show that the bible is a program for controlling the masses (as is commonly believed by the masses today).

The catholic church did not make education available to every one, that is another bold faced lie. In ancient society there were public libraries and teachers of various kinds. Again, they try to erase ancient history to promote there program. Insidious, to say the least.

You really need to read your history. The Church introduced education to THE COMMON MAN (Not Nobility ONLY). "No institution has done more for the surrounding culture than the Catholic Church. And it is identifiably itself from the beginning. There is and always has been the Church, founded by Christ around the year 30 A.D. That Church has always been hierarchical and sacramental. And it saved Western Europe from both pagan barbarism and Eastern nihilism. In fact, almost everything we value in our civilization — hospitals, museums, universities, the idea of human rights — is by origin Catholic. These things did not come from the Vikings or northern German tribes; they certainly did not come from the Gnostics. But our modern secular culture displays a willful amnesia on the subject of our Catholic patrimony."

"Catholilc Monasteries were the first sources of literary skills and gave flight to the study of all the sciences and arts, establishing Cambridge in England & the Sorbonne in France Seven hundred years of converts made Europe the Enlightened World through Catholicism's ability to bring justice and hope to those still suffering in darkness, illness and paganism"

[lucullus]

You really need to read your history. The Church introduced education to THE COMMON MAN (Not Nobility ONLY). "No institution has done more for the surrounding culture than the Catholic Church. And it is identifiably itself from the beginning. There is and always has been the Church, founded by Christ around the year 30 A.D. That Church has always been hierarchical and sacramental. And it saved Western Europe from both pagan barbarism and Eastern nihilism. In fact, almost everything we value in our civilization — hospitals, museums, universities, the idea of human rights — is by origin Catholic. These things did not come from the Vikings or northern German tribes; they certainly did not come from the Gnostics. But our modern secular culture displays a willful amnesia on the subject of our Catholic patrimony."

"Catholilc Monasteries were the first sources of literary skills and gave flight to the study of all the sciences and arts, establishing Cambridge in England & the Sorbonne in France Seven hundred years of converts made Europe the Enlightened World through Catholicism's ability to bring justice and hope to those still suffering in darkness, illness and paganism"

You have been copying and pasting catholic propaganda (source it) this entire thread. Very strange. These guy's repeat the same lie's over and over again. They do not want to give there stolen goods up.

I think you are a troll like Philly Flyers but Ill give it a go.

Every one hates religious nuts for a reason. I know you don't go outside much, but at just about every level of the social echelon's across the world, no one is religious or care's for it. From employee's in companies to kid's at school of every social level, people do not care for the church. This is no coincidence. Every one can smell the evil that is the church and it's program.

[brooks85]

"Catholilc Monasteries were the first sources of literary skills and gave flight to the study of all the sciences and arts, establishing Cambridge in England & the Sorbonne in France Seven hundred years of converts made Europe the Enlightened World through Catholicism's ability to bring justice and hope to those still suffering in darkness, illness and paganism"

Yeah all sciences, as long as they didn't involve figuring out what the hell those shiny dots in the night sky were doing. You probably don't get that joke, it's high brow.

You'll get this one.

So Catholic Monasteries were the origin of museums? I guess that library of Alexandria was just in a storage locker then.

[The Kraken]

Can I get an update on the score

Last I checked it was
Evolution 4
Bible Thumpers 2

[PhillyFlyers]

Yeah all sciences, as long as they didn't involve figuring out what the hell those shiny dots in the night sky were doing. You probably don't get that joke, it's high brow.

You'll get this one.

So Catholic Monasteries were the origin of museums? I guess that library of Alexandria was just in a storage locker then.

The Library of Alexandria wasn't a museum, idiot. I can't fukkin believe the stupidity of some in here.

[PhillyFlyers]

Right, you without a hs diploma and myself with advanced degrees would make me illiterate. You haven't two clues about almost every subject you personally introduce. Now you are talking about religion and catholicism and you are totally oblivious to the unbelievable evil and horrendous deeds perpetrated by the early and even mid catholic church. You have never heard of the Medici family? How can that possibly be. And the proof is not too long ago you asked me to tell you some of the evil perpetrated by the catholic church which means you haven't and hadn't a clue. How is that possible? How do you discuss subjects when you only have your opinions and your opinions are always wrong. BTW, am I the only guy that claims this? Nope, just about everybody tells you this could your two brain cells have a conversation and say....hmmm maybe I am an idiot.

Btw, your perseverance in ignoring me lasted what two days, check out the marshmallow test it applies perfectly to you. Look it up. And btw look up that incredibly nice ITALIAN family I mentioned.

You are an idiot. The only advanced degree you have is an advanced degree of assholology.

You couldn't understand what I was saying despite me repeating myself over and over.

You then tried to cover for your ridiculous stupidity, probably because I was embarrassing you at that point, by saying I changed what I said when I did no such thing.

A true asshole if there ever was one.

[zizoudane10]

The Library of Alexandria wasn't a museum, idiot. I can't fukkin believe the stupidity of some in here.

Yeah me, too.

You better look the word "museum" and what it stands for and where it came from up again.

[PhillyFlyers]

Yeah me, too.

You better look the word "museum" and what it stands for and where it came from up again.

The english word? The english word "museum" comes from Latin.

[PhillyFlyers]

Can I get an update on the score

Last I checked it was
Evolution 4
Bible Thumpers 2

Kraken, wrong score.

It's the other way around, at the very least a 2 point lead for creation side.

Evolutionist can't even answer my first basic question.

[zizoudane10]

The english word? The english word "museum" comes from Latin.

True. And what does it mean? Or no, wait: Where was the word museum used first AND what did it describe?

[PhillyFlyers]

True. And what does it mean? Or no, wait: Where was the word museum used first AND what did it describe?

Why don't you just come out and say what you're trying to say?

[Bruce Norris]

Just to now hijack the thread a bit, this is for my Catholic friends. My wife is Catholic, I am not. I believe, but the Catholic church and some of its teachings made me question a lot of things. I'm totally open to an open discussion, minus name calling and and all that crap. I'd even open a new thread if that was better.

Some random questions.

Why pray to Mary? Why is she a mediator, or why is that necessary?

I have many more actually, but it's a start. Baptism beliefs are different on my end as well.

[zizoudane10]

The Library of Alexandria wasn't a museum, idiot. I can't fukkin believe the stupidity of some in here.

Yeah me, too.

You better look the word "museum" and what it stands for and where it came from up again.

The english word? The english word "museum" comes from Latin.

True. And what does it mean? Or no, wait: Where was the word museum used first AND what did it describe?

Why don't you just come out and say what you're trying to say?

I suggest you reread this again.
Maybe you can figure it out.