Can you trust the Bible? - Below are some links that may at least help you to understand SOME of the reasons I do, if you care.

So you are saying that since Catholicism exist, that you know what truth is?
Have you read the Bible or just what the Church says about it?
Do you accept the Bible over Church doctrines that are in opposition to the Bible?

You say:

1) why not????? it's God who told them what to do, the holidays to observe, etc., so where do the catholics come in with their claim?

2) Jesus was a Jew.........how do we get catholicism in there?

30 you'll note i NEVER capitalize that word; it doesn't deserve the capital "c"!!!!!!!!

Comments---
1) Jesus came and brought a new reality, not a new morality. When mankind was redeemed the redemption spread backwards as well throughout all of creation---undoing the separation of man from God that was a result of what was described in Genesis in the fall of man. The holidays were good things, so they were also reordered to their true purpose.

2) Jesus had to come from the Jewish line. After He established the new relation between God and man, Catholicism (universality) was what He established.

3) If you don’t want to capitalize the word Catholic or its various similar forms, the appropriate place to register a complaint is with whoever writes the rules for Capitalization in this version of the English language. This post was edited by tom jackson at December 28, 2017 2:05 PM MST

Any scriptures support your assertions? 

Should We Celebrate Holidays?
THE Bible is not the source of popular religious and secular holidays that are celebrated in many parts of the world today. What, then, is the origin of such celebrations? If you have access to a library, you will find it interesting to note what reference books say about holidays that are popular where you live. Consider a few examples.
Easter. “There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament,” states The Encyclopædia Britannica. How did Easter get started? It is rooted in pagan worship. While this holiday is supposed to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection, the customs associated with the Easter season are not Christian. For instance, concerning the popular “Easter bunny,” The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility.”
New Year’s Celebrations. The date and customs associated with New Year’s celebrations vary from one country to another. Regarding the origin of this celebration, The World Book Encyclopedia states: “The Roman ruler Julius Caesar established January 1 as New Year’s Day in 46 B.C. The Romans dedicated this day to Janus, the god of gates, doors, and beginnings. The month of January was named after Janus, who had two faces—one looking forward and the other looking backward.” So New Year’s celebrations are founded on pagan traditions.
Halloween. The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Elements of the customs connected with Halloween can be traced to a Druid [ancient Celtic priesthood] ceremony in pre-Christian times. The Celts had festivals for two major gods—a sun god and a god of the dead . . . , whose festival was held on November 1, the beginning of the Celtic New Year. The festival of the dead was gradually incorporated into Christian ritual.”
Other Holidays. It is not possible to discuss all the observances held throughout the world. However, holidays that exalt humans or human organizations are not acceptable to Jehovah. (Jeremiah 17:5-7; Acts 10:25, 26) Keep in mind, too, that the origin of religious celebrations has a bearing on whether they please God or not. (Isaiah 52:11; Revelation 18:4) The Bible principles mentioned in Chapter 16 of this book will help you to determine how God views participation in holidays of a secular nature.

(Jeremiah 17:5-7) This is what Jehovah says: “Cursed is the man who puts his trust in mere humans, Who relies on human power, And whose heart turns away from Jehovah.  6 He will become like a solitary tree in the desert. He will not see when good comes, But he will reside in parched places in the wilderness, In a salt land where no one can live.  7 Blessed is the man who puts his trust in Jehovah, Whose confidence is in Jehovah.
(Acts 10:25, 26) As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet, and did obeisance to him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying: “Rise; I too am just a man.”
(Isaiah 52:11) Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch nothing unclean! Get out from the midst of her, keep yourselves clean, You who are carrying the utensils of Jehovah.
(Revelation 18:4) And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.

Funny that you say that but disregard almost everything the Bible says. If something is not clear, one should reason on other verses on the same subject to clear it up. (2 Tim 3:16; Acts 17:2)

Because the bible was not the end of God's revelation of the truths He wanted the world to have at its disposal.

The Jews, His own chosen people, didn't recognize His son when God sent Christ to them---and no one else had such a long preparation period.

And you think that those people who lived AT the same times as Christ or even after the last books of the bible were written and disseminated had the sophistication to understand all of the concepts contained in the new reality that Christ established with regard to the relation between God's creation and that creation itself?

Understanding the bible without the help of the Holy Spirit is simply a waste of time.

Playing solitaire with a deck of 51 will keep you busy and engaged, and perhaps even let you think you are going to eventually accomplish something, but no one who does so will ever win the game.

Sure we need to pray for holy spirit when reading the Bible and there are some things not to be understood until the time of the end. Those things understood later do not contradict the things revealed in the Bible. 


(1 Corinthians 4:6) Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” ...

(Daniel 12:4) “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”
(Daniel 12:9) Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end.
(Revelation 1:1-3) A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.

(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,
(Acts 17:2) So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
(Acts 17:11) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

GOD Sharon that was freaking amazing. 

I shot that out in about five minutes.  I am really smart.

Just like the Donald but really smart.

If one reads with an open mind and prays for holy spirit to help with understanding and let the Bible interpret the Bible, it's not that difficult to understand the important things. 


(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,
(Acts 17:2) So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
(Acts 17:11) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

"If one reads with an open mind and prays for holy spirit to help with understanding....." Maybe for the reader the problem starts with deciding which of the multiple versions of the Bible was written with the help of the holy spirit.

The 66 books not encompassing those referred to as deuterocanonical by Catholics and the apocrypha are what most refer to as the Bible canon. Of those versions:
They all say that the Father is the only true God, yes?
None say that the soul is immortal, yes?
None say that Jesus didn't die, yes?
They all hold out God's Kingdom with Jesus as King as the hope mankind and for God's will to be done here as in heaven, yes?
Pretty easy in this modern day to weed out attempts at additions and errors like John 8:1-11; Mark 16:9-20; 1 John 5:7, 8. (Error at 1 Tim 3:16) etc, yes?

People may "[start] out with the assumption that the Bible is not reliable because that is what they have been taught from birth" but if they study the Bible they can't help wondering if the writers of say the Gospels were guided by the holy spirit. If they were then why did the holy spirit, for example, inspire one writer to give one genealogy of Jesus and another writer to give a different one? If the holy spirit was directing what was going into the scripture then why did, not just a few additional words or an extra verse or two but, whole fabricated passages get into the scriptures?

When Paul wrote the phrase "All scriptures" in the letter to his student I think most will agree that neither understood "All" to include the Hindu Vedas. It is reasonable to say that "scripture" to both Paul and Timothy meant all the books that were included in the Hebrew Bible of their time. Neither Paul would have seen the letter he was writing to Timothy as scripture nor would Timothy have regarded Paul's letter to him as scripture. The Gospels did not exist at the time Paul wrote the phrase "All scriptures" so obviously he couldn't have had those in mind.

Why do you always move on from one taunt of the Bible to another rather than actually addressing my relevant responses?

How many Bible books to you accept? 66, 73, 81, 84? If neither one of us accepts more than 66, why are the other books relevant? Do you accept the Book of Mormon? It is just as valid and sick as the Quran.

"taunt"
If a Catholic explains his understanding of the Bible, and it's different from yours, is that a taunt? If a Mormon explains his understanding of the Bible, and it's different from yours, is that a taunt? Why then is it a taunt when my understanding of the Bible differs from yours?

You appear to imply that my post is not related to your response. I posted only two paragraphs and each one makes reference to what you said in your response. So I'd say my post is relevant to your response and addresses issues raised in your response.

The second paragraph in your latest post is not related to my last post.

Some people write vile comments about JWs and their version of the Bible, the NWT, just because they don't agree with it. I think that's sad. Your view of the Book of Mormons is understandable. You wouldn't of course have that view if you were a Mormon yourself, and the same can be said about your view of the Qur'an.

If someone explains their understanding of the Bible as different from mine is not a taunt in of itself. When one constantly goes around trying to make it as if the Bible contradicts itself while totally rejecting any possible congruent understanding as in this case trying to make it as if there is no way to explain how Catholics or Orthodox could possibly be wrong in adding extra books or how Paul could have been excluding Vedas when he referred to 'all scripture' and how the Bible supposedly has contradicting genealogies, that's a barrage of taunts. Not just this one thread either. It's constant from you. 'Jesus himself didn't say it so it has to be wrong' type stuff when Jesus was not the first nor only prophet ever on earth.

If my understanding is wrong then you're of course free to challenge it. No, I'd actually be delighted if you challenged it. That would give me an excuse to revisit my understanding and see if it needs correcting or improving.


However, if you regard it as a taunt because my understanding makes sense and you don't like that then there's not much I can do, is there? If you quote Paul talking about "All scripture" and I give my understanding saying that although Paul said "All scriptures" he could not have meant the Vedas too, the Hindu scriptures, and that he could not have meant his own letter, in which he used the words "All scripture" and that he could not have meant any of the four Gospels as they were not written yet, then you can correct me if any of that is wrong. If you realise that they are not wrong and that they do make sense then you also realise that you cannot challenge them. Maybe you don't like that and that makes you feel "taunted". If so, then it is facts that you are finding "taunting". I would say daunting. There's nothing that I can do about that. It's up to you to work out how you want to handle any discrepancy between facts and your understanding.

A sincere person would likely bring up one or maybe two sincere questions at a time and not start out with his understanding is the only possible correct way. Paul's inspired writings make his writings part of all scripture as it doesn't just say all Hebrew scriptures. 


Wouldn't it have been easy for the writers of Matthew and Luke to corroborate their stories if a lie?

[...the genealogies supplied by the two Gospel writers differ. Matthew traces Joseph’s ancestry and shows that Jesus as Joseph’s adopted son was the legal heir to David’s kingship. Why? Because Joseph was a descendant of King David through the line of David’s son Solomon. (Matt. 1:6, 16) However, Luke evidently traces Mary’s ancestry and shows that Jesus was the natural heir, “according to the flesh,” to David’s kingship. (Rom. 1:3) Why? Because Mary was a descendant of King David through the line of David’s son Nathan. (Luke 3:31) But why does Luke not list Mary in his genealogy as the daughter of Heli, her father? Because official genealogies were generally traced through the men. So when Luke lists Joseph and describes him as the son of Heli, it was understood to mean that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law.—Luke 3:23.
The genealogical lists by Matthew and Luke clearly establish that Jesus was the foretold Messiah. In fact, the truth about Jesus’ genealogy was so well-known that even the Pharisees and Sadducees could not deny it. Today, both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogical records remain a part of the foundation of our faith and a testimony to the sureness of the promises of God....]


EDIT: You don't see your condescending self righteous taunting attitude?
[However, if you regard it as a taunt because my understanding makes sense and you don't like that then there's not much I can do, is there? If you quote Paul talking about "All scripture" and I give my understanding saying that although Paul said "All scriptures" he could not have meant the Vedas too, the Hindu scriptures, and that he could not have meant his own letter, in which he used the words "All scripture" and that he could not have meant any of the four Gospels as they were not written yet, then you can correct me if any of that is wrong. If you realise that they are not wrong and that they do make sense then you also realise that you cannot challenge them. Maybe you don't like that and that makes you feel "taunted". If so, then it is facts that you are finding "taunting". I would say daunting. There's nothing that I can do about that. It's up to you to work out how you want to handle any discrepancy between facts and your understanding.] This post was edited by texasescimo at February 10, 2018 8:19 AM MST

"not start out with his understanding is the only possible correct way." >>>>  I give up. Where did I say that my "understanding is the only possible correct way"??? I keep saying that it is my understanding and that you have your understanding like the Catholics have theirs. I also keep saying that I explain my understanding and welcome challenges to it so that I can review it and correct it or improve it where I see the need. I enjoy the freedom of being able to improve and grow my understanding. I do not belong to any organisation that will object to my changing my understanding or expel me from the organisation.

Looks to me like you are saying your understanding is facts and mine is just my understanding contrary to your facts, yes?
"It's up to you to work out how you want to handle any discrepancy between facts and your understanding"

You ready to talk about the Quran and the fruitage of Islam?


(Matthew 7:15-20) “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.

"It's up to you to work out how you want to handle any discrepancy between facts and your understanding" >>> very easy. If I call something a fact and you think it is not a fact just challenge it with your evidence. Matter resolved. Take my statements in which I excluded what could not possibly be covered by what Paul meant by the phrase "All scripture" You think I was wrong on any of the four items I said were excluded from Paul's "All scripture" then just present your reasonable argument. If you're right I'll benefit and I'll change my understanding. I'm very free to do so.


"You ready to talk about the Quran and the fruitage of Islam?" >>>> How will that help you or me on the subject under discussion?

Where is your fact that Paul was saying that all scripture meant only previous scriptures and excludes the other inspired scriptures to come?

Where's your facts that Jesus didn't die? 


Quote: ["You ready to talk about the Quran and the fruitage of Islam?" >>>> How will that help you or me on the subject under discussion?]
Perhaps it will get you off the attack and to think about your glass house. All the rocks and bullets thrown and shot at their own brothers will surely shatter it.