I dont hold him accountable, he claims he is accountable, not me.
He claims it was Jesus, not me.
If he DID have some spirit contact him, it was a demon, not Jesus.
Race, Race, Race,
I suppose I should congratulate you for at least posting some Scripture verses. You're moving in the right direction!
(1 Cor 13:8-10 KJV) . . . I know it because the Bible DOES say these things will pass.
Your selected verses don't support your proposition (presupposition, actually). It doesn't say prophecy ended in the past. What it does say in 1 Cor 13:10 is that there will be no need for prophecy and tongues after the Second Coming. I suspect all Christians would agree with that.
As an aside, I would urge you to read and study all of 1 Cor 13. It is one of those extraordinarily Catholic chapters (they all are, actually) that blows away notions of "Salvation by Faith Alone" held by too many Protestants. After all, you do claim to follow the Bible, right?
"though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2b
Even the Church history tells us that.
You seem to be confusing public revelation and private revelation again. Let me know if you need any help with that.
Many insist that the gift of prophecy is still being given today. Think of the implications of this. . . This kind of teaching is a serious attack on the sufficiency of the Bible as our final and only authority for faith and practice.
YOU ARE SO CLOSE! The Church teaches that public revelation ceased with the last apostle. I think that we are in agreement with that aspect. And this is one reason that latter day public "prophets", like the Mormons and the Muslims don't have much of a case. (Another reason is that their prophets contradict previous prophets -- but I digress.) God can, however, reveal Himself to whomever He chooses. Such authentic (private) revelation, is binding on the individual only.
Oh, and another aside. Nowhere does the Bible claim that it is the "final and only authority for faith and practice". That's just another one of those Protestant inventions.
The 66 Books of the Bible are not enough...
He-he! Right again. The Bible has 73 books. Always has since the canon was first set in 382 AD.
In 1 Corinthians 13:8 we learn that prophecies would be done away, whereas faith, hope and love would remain. This prediction came to pass at the end of the first century.
Again, you're taking that out of context. Paul isn't predicting that prophecy will end any time soon. He is
reasoning that prophecy and tongues won't be needed once Our Lord comes again. That is the literal reading.
The key issue then is the SUFFICIENCY of the Word of God. Is the Bible really sufficient?
You've made several logical errors here. Is the Word of God sufficient? This ambiguous question is likely true for both common meanings of "Word of God" but turns on how you define sufficiency. (If you need help understanding the difference between "material sufficiency" and "formal sufficiency", let me know.) You are also implying an equality between "Word of God" and "Bible" that is demonstrably false. (Even the Bible acknowledges this equality as untrue.) At best, the Bible is only a subset of the "Word of God". And your blanket assertion that "sufficiency" is key is not logically supported by your reasoning thus far.
1) Christ promised the Apostles that the Spirit of truth would guide them into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13). The Spirit did guide them into all truth and this truth was incorporated into the New Testament Scriptures. What more do we need?
Wow. So close, and yet so far. Where in the Bible does it say that this "truth" was incorporated into the New Testament Scriptures? Doesn't the Bible actually say that this truth is now located in the church, "the pillar and ground of the truth"? (1 Tim 3:15) Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.
2) Paul tells us that the God-breathed Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17). What more do we need?
What more do we need? At a minimum, we need to read that in context.
2 Tim 1:13-14> Paul says guard Apostolic Tradition
2 Tim 2:2> Paul says teach Apostolic Tradition
2 Tim 3:14> Paul says follow Apostolic Tradition
2 Tim 3:15> "
And" (i.e., oh by the way, don't forget to) follow scriptures
(Paul is talking about the OT, as the NT had not yet been established)
2 Tim 3:16> the OT is profitable, (useful, but not sufficient)
If this verse proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it only proves the sufficiency of the Old Testament. (Better chuck out all that New Testament stuff ;-)
Rather, 2 Tim is largely about following Apostolic Tradition. And where does one find this Apostolic Tradition? In the very church that Jesus built on Peter.
John puts the final "PERIOD" at the close of God's completed revelation, warning us not to add to or to subtract from this book (Revelation 22:18-19).
Dear oh dear. Read it again. John literally says "scroll" (singular). He's talking about his one manuscript. This is also seen in his words "if any man shall take away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy." (Books didn't exist at the time John wrote this.) If this defines the canon of Scripture, it means only Revelation is needed and all the other books can be tossed.
Interestingly, there is a similar command in Deut 4:2 ("Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.") Shall we toss everything after Deut 4:2? I thought not.
It appears that your biggest hurdle is that you are burdened with several presuppositions about what the Bible says, and you spend a lot of time trying to find proof texts to support your notions. That is why it is so easy for others to disprove your points. Rather, you need (at a minimum) to read the Bible without presuppositions, and learn to harmonize all the various texts that touch on a given subject. The Catholic Church, with 2,000 years of experience standing on the shoulders of scriptural giants defending the faith has a pretty good grip on its doctrines. The Bible is, after all, a Catholic book. There is NOTHING in the Bible that contradicts Catholicism and NOTHING in Catholicism that contradicts what is in the Bible. Try it, you'll like it.
Pax Christi,
