Posted on 01/27/2012 9:11:21 PM PST by Salvation
This is true most protestants are completely biblically illiterate. I really didn't understand the Bible until I re-entered the Catholic Church and read it in context and with a historical perspective.
I think I can rephrase.
Using the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, prove that Matthew wrote a gospel that is inspired?
In other words, which chapter and verse proves that Matthew’s gospel belongs in the New Testament canon?
So I could get an annulment from my two previous marriages and run for President.
Matthew 24 whole chapter, IF I had to pick but one. We are living what Christ said would be right now. Mark 13 and Luke 21 give second and third witness to what Matthew penned the inspired WORD. But what really establishes the certification/credentials comes from the prophets. Christ continually quoted the prophets. Almost always there is a second witness written down at different time that gives the WORD its 'Inspired' credentials. God has a plan, and He selected who He wanted to write down His plan so that those with eyes to see and ears to hear would heed His warning.
But granted it is also Written that some are placed in a state of slumber for their own protection.
Wow, I’m coming to your house for the holidays
they must never end :-)
I believe G.K. Chesterton gave my answer: To have my sins absolved.
(now the knee-jerk Catholic liberalism toward environment, illegal imigration, “economic justice”, and even “hug a muslim”... are other matters. But still, far head of the Israel-boycotting protestant churches such as the one I no longer attend)
Using scripture alone show that Matthew wrote a gospel and that it is inspired.
It may not be in the form of a question, but wasn’t it clear enough what I am asking for?
Then shouldn’t Reagan have become a Catholic by your logic?
No it was NOT clear at all. And this is even more confusing... Using scripture alone Psalms 22 if you consider that Scripture.
No, I don’t think it is confusing at all. Since Protestants say they believe in sola scriptura they should have no troubles whatsoever understanding it.
You will be welcome!
Though we pronounce them holydays, and fast and pray.
Seriously, cooking for a catholic household with a heavy buddhist influence is not easy ....
I’m glad it isn’t - it’s always great comic relief watching the haters ooze out of the walls to do their superior dance (just like the Bible taught ‘em, by the way)
There is a sweet irony to such a great proponent of literacy being unable to figure out whether or not the word "Caucus" appears in an exhaustively long 10 word title....
Vladdy baby is just baiting the Sola scripturists....
“Then shouldn’t Reagan have become a Catholic by your logic?”
I suppose he could have become one if he wanted. However, Reagan didn’t need to rent the credibility of the Catholic church for purely political purposes. Newt did, and was able to do business with Rome.
You Catholics should be a bit more skeptical of Protestant politicians converting and requesting annulments.
Come to think of it, you should probably be a bit more skeptical of Catholic politicians requesting annulments, too.
You wrote:
“I suppose he could have become one if he wanted. However, Reagan didn’t need to rent the credibility of the Catholic church for purely political purposes. Newt did, and was able to do business with Rome.”
Newt didn’t need to do anything. As a Protestant he could have simply said he was forgiven by God and every Protestant would have to accept that or be a hypocrite.
“You Catholics should be a bit more skeptical of Protestant politicians converting and requesting annulments.”
No. 1) People convert all the time, and there’s no reason to think that politicians, for instance, who have shown genuine interest in pro-life causes and love history aren’t sincere in their conversions. 2) The annulment has nothing to do with anything. Newt could have civilly married without the annulment and he could have run for president without the annulment.
“Come to think of it, you should probably be a bit more skeptical of Catholic politicians requesting annulments, too.”
Again, no. Other people request. There’s no more reason to skeptical about politicians than those other people.
It is confusing because I do use the filtration system required to answer your question. Psalms 22 written long before Matthew records the Crucifixion even down to the Roman soldiers gambling, what the Roman appointed high priest would be saying, and the Words Christ Himself spoke.
I love it when the “nonjudgmental” judge supposed “haters”...nonjudgmentally of course!
I neither brought up any Psalm nor is any Psalm actually connected in any way to what I said or asked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.