PDA

View Full Version : Standing Up To Rome



Pages : [1] 2

WeberHome
November 3rd, 2015, 07:02 PM
-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true Christian religion. Some Catholics see red
whenever the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some
Catholics see criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as
hatred for Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is a reliable authority in all
matters pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and
read it. A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968
suggested that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is a reliable
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 47 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 07:09 PM
Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible; nor does it always agree with Christ.
QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

WeberHome
November 3rd, 2015, 07:45 PM
-

According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the
Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

Christ and the Bible.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

JonahofAkron
November 3rd, 2015, 08:10 PM
You done did it now.

WeberHome
November 3rd, 2015, 10:32 PM
-
†. John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

The kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting Christ's flesh, and correctly
imbibing his blood, is eternal life.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Note the tense of Christ's "has" verb in John 6:54. It's present tense rather
than future, indicating that people who correctly ingest his flesh, and
correctly imbibe his blood, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no
waiting period.

There has never been a time when eternal life didn't exist because it's the
kind of life that sustains God; viz: eternal life always was, it always is, and it
always shall be. In other words: eternal life is an imperishable kind of life
that's impervious to death, decay, and the aging process. Were that not
true, it would be possible to assassinate God.

That being the case, then the kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting
Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, never wears out nor ever
wears off because in order for it to wear out or wear off, it would have to
die; which, by eternal life's very nature, is impossible. If it were possible for
eternal life to die, then it wouldn't be eternal.

So then, once someone obtains eternal life, they never need to obtain it
again seeing as how eternal life is impervious to death-- and seeing as how
it's impervious to death, then it's impervious to the wages of sin (Rom 6:23)
which means that it would not die in between confessions and/or in between
doses of Eucharist.

Christ compared himself to the manna that Yhvh's people subsisted on out in
the wilderness prior to their entry into the land of Canaan. Manna was
nourishing, but it was merely an organic sustenance; viz: it didn't have any
life in it. No matter how much of the stuff that the people consumed, manna
couldn't keep them alive forever. They eventually died. And the people
couldn't get by on just one dose of manna; they had to consume it on a daily
basis or risk starvation.

In contrast, Christ is far and away superior to organic sustenance. His body
and blood aren't common sustenance, they are life; and the quality of the
life is such that people need to partake of it just once and they will live
forever-- they don't have to keep eating and drinking his blood over and
over and over again as if it were manna.

Now, the trick to obtaining this benefit is in correctly partaking of Christ's
flesh and blood. When people do it incorrectly, they fail to obtain eternal life;
ergo: they risk passing on with only human life; which is a perishable kind of
life that will not survive the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
20:10-15.

Q: How does one partake of Christ's body and blood correctly?

A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, either literal or transubstantiated, they are going to have to first
make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how Christ
rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were
Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant
wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the
jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the
Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood
(Lev 7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would
have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the
position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.

Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were
cryptic. Though his words look like ordinary language and grammar; they
said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.

†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit

Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need
some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient
in spirit-speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 10:47 PM
Christ and the Bible.
And according to whose infallibly binding interpretation of the Bible do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

brewmama
November 3rd, 2015, 10:56 PM
-


Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 47 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

I guess you missed the part of the Bible that says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,"

or on the road to Emmaus, the 2 disciples , meeting Jesus, did not recognize Him, even when " He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."

It took the Eucharist to know Him. "30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

keypurr
November 3rd, 2015, 10:56 PM
-


Christ and the Bible.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Right answer friend.

God comes first of not at all.

You have been blessed.

brewmama
November 3rd, 2015, 10:57 PM
Or the clear statement that the Bible is not of private interpretation:

"So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

WeberHome
November 4th, 2015, 07:30 AM
-

And according to whose infallibly binding interpretation of the Bible do you
claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and
Christ"?

†. 1John 4:1 . . Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see
whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out
into the world.

In order to "try" the spirits (whoever and/or whatever those spirits might be
in, whether thoughts, prophets, writings, clergy, or laymen) one must first
have access to an independent, unbiased, non proprietary source of truth
with which all other instructional materials must comply. That in itself is an
impossibility for John and Jane Doe pew warmer because they depend
entirely upon the integrity of Rome's magisterium for the truth-- a
magisterium composed of human beings who, in reality, may be under the
influence of the very spirits whom pew warmers are supposed to try; but
have no independent, unbiased, non proprietary means to do so.

What I'm saying is this: if the magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of
dark beings, then the rank and file are inadvertent puppets of the dark
beings through their trust in the integrity of Rome's magisterium; viz: a
Catholic is the perfect patsy because Rome has convinced the rank and file
that the clergy alone has the truth, and convinced them that, on their own,
they cannot find the truth without the clergy's help: a classic catch-22.

In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning; viz: pointing to Rome's
own proprietary teachings to prove that it's right. That kind of evidence is
inadmissible in a court of law because it's like dismissing the charges against
a defendant simply by virtue of the fact that he says he didn't do it. In other
words, Catholics are confident Rome has the true interpretation of The Holy
Bible because Rome's teachings say it does. Thus the average pew warmer
is a naive child who renders an utterly thoughtless compliance to the string
pulls of an organization which the rank and file have absolutely no way to
validate except by taking its own word for it.

Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any
doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with
Tradition.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone.

To that rule, the rank and file might be inclined to retort: So what? Well; the
consequence of that "so what" attitude is the destruction of conscience and
integrity.

A famous social psychology experiment published in Stanley Milgram's
"Behavioral Study of Obedience", revealed that people are too easily
persuaded to compromise their integrity and suppress their own conscience
while under the supervision of a higher authority. The experiment was
performed with subjects who were under the impression that they were
giving increasingly higher doses of electricity in 15 volt increments, wired to
strangers in an adjoining room who answered questions incorrectly. The
registered voltage could go as high as 420, and the person receiving them
(who was of course just an actor playing a part in the experiment) would let
out increasingly agonized cries from the shocks.

Amazingly, the subjects throwing the switch would sometimes break into
tears from the stress of knowingly causing a stranger undeserved pain.
Others would be sweating, trembling, stuttering, or biting their lips, and
some even broke into uncontrollable nervous fits of psychotic laughter like
souls gone mad; but would still faithfully continue to administer what they
were led to believe was pain and near-causes of death from the electric
shocks jolting suffering people in the adjoining room failing to answer
questions correctly. And even when the actors protested the shocks because
of an existing heart condition, the electricity continued to flow because the
switch operators were told they would not be held accountable if somebody
should die during the experiment.

When Nazi death camp guards were asked how they could, in all good
conscience, justify abusing and killing so many innocent men, women, and
children; they simply answered: "You can't blame any of us for that; we
were only following orders."

It's beyond belief, but many of those very same German guards were
Christians who attended church on Sunday, sang the lovely hymns and
partook the Eucharist; then during the week, impaled newborn Jewish
infants-- thrown out of hospital windows --in midair on their bayonets.

There you have the typical Catholic mentality: "It is not for me to reason
why, it's only for me to faithfully comply." Thus many Catholics willingly
suppress their conscience, and surrender control of their sensitivities, their
reasoning, and their better judgment to the Borg-collective nerve center of a
Magisterium like all good little Catholic boys and girls are supposed to do.
And if The Magisterium is wrong? Well, so what? Can you really blame the
rank and file? After all; they were only doing their duty; and how could God
possibly condemn anybody for that?

But it's not going to work that way at the Great White Throne event depicted
at Rev 20:11-15. Nobody but nobody is going to pass the buck. If an
otherwise intelligent pew warmer foolishly chooses to let others do their own
thinking for them, then they will perish in a fool's death even if their own
personal IQ is 200 or better.

†. Luke 6:39 . .Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the
ditch?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 4th, 2015, 08:00 AM
-

I guess you missed the part of the Bible that says "Knowing this first, that
no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,"

†. 2Pet 1:20 . . Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture
that is a matter of personal interpretation

That verse is easily interpreted by merely reading the information that
accompanies it.

†. 2Pet 1:21 . . for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather
human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

You see: Peter isn't saying that John and Jane Doe pew warmer can't
possibly understand the Old Testament on their own; he's merely saying
that the books of the Old Testaments aren't the product of a fertile
imagination and/or somebody's creative writing skills like Steven King
and/or Stephanie Meyer and Beatrix Potter.

When the language and grammar of 2Pet 1:20-21 are carefully examined;
it's readily seen that what Peter is actually talking about is not the
understanding of prophecy, but rather; the origin of prophecy.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Cruciform
November 5th, 2015, 10:08 PM
That in itself is an impossibility for John and Jane Doe pew warmer because they depend entirely upon the integrity of Rome's Magisterium for the truth...
No more so than does every non-Catholic depend entirely upon the supposed integrity of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect for the truth.


...a Magisterium composed of human beings who, in reality, may be under the influence of the very spirits whom pew warmers are supposed to try...

QUESTION: Were the apostles---who were also human beings---ALSO possibly "under the influence of the very spirits" whom 1st-century "pew-warmers" were supposed to try? (Before answering, see, e.g., 1 Jn. 4:6; 1 Tim. 3:15.)
Also, precisely how---by what means or method---according to the New Testament's teaching, is a lay believer intended to "test the spirits"?


What I'm saying is this: IF the Magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of dark beings...
A gigantic "if." The central fallacy here is in assuming that Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) itself COULD in fact lapse into formal doctrinal error, an assumption against which Christ's own Church---as well as Divine Revelation---has taught for two millennia now. For example, see this (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/sola-scriptura-vs-the-magisterium-what-did-jesus-teach/), this (http://www.cuf.org/2002/11/pillar-and-bulwark-of-the-truth-the-infallibility-magisterium-of-the-catholic-church/), and this (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/).


In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning...
Again, no more circular than the Protestant's tacit appeal to the supposed doctrinal "authority" of his chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect for his personal interpretations and beliefs.


Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with Tradition.
Of course, just as the Protestant interprets the Bible in accordance with the doctrinal traditions of his favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. For instance, the Baptist exegete is forbidden by his Baptist doctrinal tradition from interpreting any passage of the Bible in a way which would deny or reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This simply is not allowed in his particular non-Catholic tradition. Likewise for Catholics, who read Scripture according to the formal and binding doctrines of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). One's beliefs, after all, are never formed in a vacuum.


In light of the above, I'll ask again:

According to whose infallibly binding interpretations of the Bible do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

rougueone
November 5th, 2015, 10:33 PM
QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The authority is Jesus. Who is infallible.

Then Cruciform we have the flip side of the coin, " "The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.).

Whose Fathers ?

Cruciform
November 5th, 2015, 10:48 PM
The authority is Jesus.
Is it Jesus who's interpreting the Bible when you read it, or is it you? :think:


Then Cruciform we have the flip side of the coin, " "The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.). Whose Fathers ?
The Fathers of the early Christian Church---those recognized and honored scholars and leaders of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) who lived between the 1st and 8th centuries A.D.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Greg Jennings
November 5th, 2015, 10:52 PM
QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

Do you believe that all popes throughout history have been infallible and uncorrupted?

dialm
November 5th, 2015, 11:12 PM
The very early church was good. It was so good that it was given the power of the government. And that was the problem. Men who were not Christians came into the church as a vehicle for attaining political power. The Reformation was the start of the separation of church and state. The Roman church refuses to be reformed. The political aspect that is the Roman church is the number one main problem seperating Protestants and Catholics. Theology is the lesser problem in this instance.

rougueone
November 6th, 2015, 01:13 AM
QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The authority is Jesus. Who is infallible.

Then Cruciform we have the flip side of the coin, " "The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.).

Whose Fathers ?

The 66 books of Scriptures are the journal from the beginning-Genesis, to mankind's end, Revelation.

WeberHome
November 6th, 2015, 07:19 AM
-
Christ spoke for God.

†. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's
Spirit is upon him without measure or limit

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things
as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.

†. Heb 1:1-2 . . In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the
prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has
spoken to us by His son

It is his Father's wishes that people heed Christ.

†. Matt 17:5 . .While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud
overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My
beloved son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to him!

It's risky to ignore the words that Jesus Christ spoke for God.

†. John 12:48 . . He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings, has
one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

According to the words that Jesus Christ spoke for God: it is his Father's
wishes that non believers be evangelized first and baptized afterwards (Matt
28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16). Seeing as how infants are de facto incapable of
believing, then their baptism has to be held off until they're old enough to
understand.

There are Christian churches out there who've got the cart before the horse
and by doing so declare themselves Christ's opponents.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

And they don't think much of him much neither.

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

I've noted in my many years of Bible study that there are two things that
God values very highly. One is honesty, and the other is loyalty; which
Webster's defines as unswerving in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or
government.

†. Luke 6:46-49 . .Why do you call me lord and master and do not do what I
say?

. . . Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and acts upon them, I
will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug
deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent
burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well
built.

. . . But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man
who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent
burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was
great.

Churches that circumvent Christ's instructions as per Matt 28:18-20 and
Mark 16:15-16 by baptizing infants are not only disloyal; but they are also
no different than pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping Shiva and
Vishnu.

†. 1Sam 15:23 . . Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is
as iniquity and idolatry.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

HisServant
November 6th, 2015, 07:46 AM
QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The criminal has no infallible and binding authority.

Most disgusting institution that has ever existed on this planet.

ISIS is kinder and gentler than the RCC was in its hay day.

JonahofAkron
November 6th, 2015, 09:13 AM
I think that a great question has been raised. Have all of the popes and their traditions been infallible? A particular nuisance in the Borgias comes to mind....

chrysostom
November 6th, 2015, 09:32 AM
Jesus built the church
and
it was the church that gave us the bible
so
pay attention to His church

PureX
November 6th, 2015, 09:49 AM
It doesn't really mater who's orthodoxy we choose to tie ourselves to, if any. What really matters is who we are becoming as a result of our choices. Religion can't save anyone, nor condemn anyone. We do that to ourselves.

chrysostom
November 6th, 2015, 10:09 AM
It doesn't really mater who's orthodoxy we choose to tie ourselves to, if any. What really matters is who we are becoming as a result of our choices. Religion can't save anyone, nor condemn anyone. We do that to ourselves.

not exactly

what really matters
is
loving your neighbor

SaulToPaul
November 6th, 2015, 10:15 AM
Jesus built the church
and
it was the church that gave us the bible
so
pay attention to His church

:chuckle:

ok doser
November 6th, 2015, 10:24 AM
not exactly

what really matters
is
loving your neighbor

what if he's an irresponsible dog owner?

chrysostom
November 6th, 2015, 10:27 AM
what if he's an irresponsible dog owner?

that is how God tests me

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 03:47 PM
The authority is Jesus. Who is infallible.

Then Cruciform we have the flip side of the coin, " "The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.).

Whose Fathers ?

The 66 books of Scriptures are the journal from the beginning-Genesis, to mankind's end, Revelation.
Already answered---and corrected---in Post #14 above.

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 03:50 PM
Do you believe that all popes throughout history have been infallible and uncorrupted?
I hold to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility), yes.

ok doser
November 6th, 2015, 03:54 PM
even the ones who are widely recognized as being corrupt? :freak:

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 03:57 PM
Christ spoke for God.
No one disputes that. Again:

According to whose infallibly binding interpretations of the Bible do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 03:59 PM
The [Catholic Church] has no infallible and binding authority.
...declares one who himself "has no infallible and binding authority" whatsoever. :yawn:

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 04:00 PM
I think that a great question has been raised. Have all of the popes and their traditions been infallible? A particular nuisance in the Borgias comes to mind....
Not if one correctly understands the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. (See Post #28 above.)

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 04:02 PM
even the ones who are widely recognized as being corrupt? :freak:
Your question has already been answered in Post #28 above.

everready
November 6th, 2015, 04:18 PM
Not if one correctly understands the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. (See Post #28 above.)

These men women and children understood all too well:

http://biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm


everready

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 04:51 PM
These men women and children understood all too well: ...foxes...
Don't bother (http://reocities.com/Athens/troy/6480/actsandmonuments.html).

Back to Post #28.

PureX
November 6th, 2015, 05:21 PM
not exactly

what really matters
is
loving your neighborI agree. And that's not a religious dogma, that's just the plain facts. Because as we show love to others, it will be shown in return, to us (generally; not in every instance). And we don't need to join a religion to recognize this truth, or to practice it.

WeberHome
November 7th, 2015, 03:55 PM
-
Q: Where in the Bible do you find where it says apostolic traditions exist only
in the Bible's texts? What about 2Thss 2:15? "Therefore, brothers, stand
firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral
statement or by a letter of ours."

A: The New Testament canon was incomplete when Paul penned his second
letter to the Thessalonian believers; and in the really early days of
Christianity, the primary source of New Testament teaching wasn't from
books at all, but was totally via word of mouth; viz: itinerant evangelism.

No doubt everything that Paul and Silvanus meant to pass on to their friends
as tradition, via word of mouth and/or via letters, was eventually put down
in writing, authored by not only Paul and Silvanus, but also by Peter, James,
John, and Jude too; as those men all preached a unified, homogenous,
harmonious message (cf. Gal 1:15-2:9, 2Pet 3:15-16). And whatever's
supposedly missing from the sacred texts, is dangerously subject to human
error, private ambition, bias, and a fertile imagination.

If Paul and his associates should show up here in Oregon at a speaking
engagement, then I will listen to the traditions that they teach by mouth.
Until that happens, I will obey his command to hold fast to the traditions he
and his associates taught by letter rather than what Rome claims those men
taught by mouth; and I would advise everyone to do the same.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

turbosixx
November 7th, 2015, 04:39 PM
-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true Christian religion. Some Catholics see red
whenever the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some
Catholics see criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as
hatred for Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is a reliable authority in all
matters pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and
read it. A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968
suggested that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is a reliable
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 47 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Thank you for your testimony. My wife’s story is similar to yours. She was sprinkled as an infant, when through catechism, First Holy Communion and Confirmation but all she knew was church doctrine. She didn’t know the bible. When she came to church with me and heard sermons preached from the bible, she was blown away.

As far as JW, I see them as a new version of the Catholic church. They both have men telling them what the bible says using other writtings.

turbosixx
November 7th, 2015, 05:01 PM
I hold to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility), yes.

We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).


I don't see where Jesus says "your successors". What verses would you use to support successors?

In my understanding the Holy Spirit guided the NT writers and when we read that is how we are guided. I fail to see the necessity of successors and new revelation. I find the canon to be sufficient.

aikido7
November 7th, 2015, 06:11 PM
...declares one who himself "has no infallible and binding authority" whatsoever. :yawn:To be blunt, Jesus already stood up to Rome and the powers and principalities of his day and ours.

The mistake the church made was when it got into bed with the Holy Roman Empire in the 4th century. It became a state religion and inherited all of the patriarchy, violence and bureaucracy in any totalitarian regime.

Zeke
November 7th, 2015, 06:23 PM
To be blunt, Jesus already stood up to Rome and the powers and principalities of his day and ours.

The mistake the church made was when it got into bed with the Holy Roman Empire in the 4th century. It became a state religion and inherited all of the patriarchy, violence and bureaucracy in any totalitarian regime.

They have a long line of Filibusters who are trained/programmed to deny, deny, and then deny to infinity and beyond any source that reveals the dark side of their creation, a historical Jesus being one of them.

Cruciform
November 7th, 2015, 06:27 PM
Where in the Bible do you find where it says apostolic traditions exist only in the Bible's texts? What about 2Thess 2:15?
Sorry, but no (see this (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html), for example).


No doubt everything that Paul and Silvanus meant to pass on to their friends as tradition, via word of mouth and/or via letters, was eventually put down in writing...
Merely a false assumption on your part---see the source cited just above. In any case, please cite the biblical text which states that "Everything the apostles meant to pass on as Tradition was eventually put down in writing."


And whatever's supposedly missing from the sacred texts, is dangerously subject to human error, private ambition, bias, and a fertile imagination.
No more than is Scripture itself when placed at the whimsy of the pro-sola scriptura Protestant's private interpretations.


If Paul and his associates should show up here in Oregon at a speaking engagement, then I will listen to the traditions that they teach by mouth.
Yet that wouldn't get you off the hook, since the apostles themselves chose and ordained successors to their ministry known as bishops (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon), who possess the very same doctrinal authority as did their predecessors (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; cf. 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
November 7th, 2015, 06:42 PM
I don't see where Jesus says "your successors". What verses would you use to support successors?
Here (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) is a list of biblical texts on the subject.


In my understanding the Holy Spirit guided the NT writers and when we read that is how we are guided. I fail to see the necessity of successors and new revelation. I find the canon to be sufficient.
The Bible must be interpreted by human beings, and the mere fact that Protestantism is a fractured chaos of 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects is sufficient proof that your final comment above is simply unworkable in reality.
Also, nowhere in Scripture can one find a text stating that the Bible is "sufficient" in a numerical, or formal, sense.
Finally, Scripture itself contains positive teaching that apostolic oral Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is the word of God, and is to be affirmed and followed by believers.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Zeke
November 7th, 2015, 06:49 PM
The Romanized Christ by Wayne Lamar Harrington along with the writings of Joseph Wheless on the forgery in Christianity.

Where traditionalist fear to tread.

aikido7
November 7th, 2015, 07:27 PM
They have a long line of Filibusters who are trained/programmed to deny, deny, and then deny to infinity and beyond any source that reveals the dark side of their creation, a historical Jesus being one of them.This is the usual fate of all religions. Either they keep speaking to us or else they will be changed or dropped entirely.

It is an interesting fact of history that the little band of Jesus people who shared meals and drink with the human trash of their society became a crowd of elite bishops eating in royal banquet in an immense hall of the government of Rome.

And irony of ironies, the great congregation was surrounded by armed Roman soldiers.

So much for a nonviolent movement consisting of a kingdom of equals.

The Emperor Constantine brought together bishops from all over to force them to come up with a theology of Jesus that everyone could agree to.

The usual evolution of religions is encapsulated in these three steps, modeled after the great prehistoric civilization of Sumer:

1. The gods rule
2. The gods rule through me.
3. "I rule!"

aikido7
November 7th, 2015, 07:30 PM
The Romanized Christ by Wayne Lamar Harrington along with the writings of Joseph Wheless on the forgery in Christianity.

Where traditionalist fear to tread.A sizable amount of Paul's so-called letters have been determined to be forgeries.

oatmeal
November 7th, 2015, 07:32 PM
QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The scripture, that is, God's holy word, is that unfallible and binding authority that points out the severity of the errors of the RCC.

oatmeal
November 7th, 2015, 07:36 PM
And according to whose infallibly binding interpretation of the Bible do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

The scripture, that is, God's holy word, is that infallibly binding interpreter.

God knows what He is talking about and He knew as He authored it who would be reading it and wanting to know what is on God's heart for His people.

God is wise, He knew who would be reading it. He wrote it for people who want to know and believe and to those who want to know more and believe more of God's words, the truth.

JonahofAkron
November 7th, 2015, 07:51 PM
Not if one correctly understands the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. (See Post #28 above.)

So, rape and murder as the 'head of the church' is acceptable because he is the pope. Got it. Holding to that doctrine is pretty interesting......I wonder what else you stand by the papacy for.

WeberHome
November 7th, 2015, 08:12 PM
-
Rome has constructed for itself a papal tree showing its own succession all
the way back to Peter. But man-made successions aren't reliable, and should
never be trusted by serious students of the Holy Bible; because even while
the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, there were professing
Christians already breaking away and starting apostate movements (e.g.
Gal 1:6-9, 1Tim 1:3-4, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19).

Those early apostates could easily show that their own hierarchical
successions connected to Peter; who was actually just a few steps away. In
fact, their distance from Peter was very short, shorter by more than 1,900
years than it is today. I believe the Roman Church to be the end product of
some of those early apostates.

OBJECTION: That couldn't be because the purpose of those passages in the
apostles' epistles was to expose the errors of the time so that people
wouldn't follow the apostates.

RESPONSE: The epistles weren't sent out to the world at large; like as if
there were millions of copies run off the presses and shipped out to news
stands, television stations, radio stations, and book stores in every city and
country. No, the epistles were hand-written letters sent by courier only to
designated recipients. The world at large didn't have a clue, nor would it
have cared anyway even if it had access to those letters. Just because those
early apostates were "exposed", do you really think that stopped them from
proliferating?

Apostate movements grow at astounding rates in spite of the now wide
spread availability of New Testaments. For example, Mormonism has grown
from just one man in 1820 to approximately 9.37 million in 2015; and that
figure doesn't even factor in the numbers of Mormons who have lived and
died during the 195 years since the Mormon Church was founded. Those
9.37 million Mormons are those of today, not the past. Mormonism's belief
system incorporates the New Testament, including every one of those
epistles I referenced above. In point of fact, the Mormon Church offers free
Bibles to anybody who requests one.

The Watch Tower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) has grown from one
man in 1881 to approximately 8.2 million in 2015; and that figure doesn't
factor in the numbers of Watch Tower Society members who have come and
gone during the 134 years since the movement began. The Society bases its
Christology on the New Testament.

The Roman papacy has had its humorous moments. It's a historical fact that
at one time there were no less than three different "infallible" popes all in
power at the same time.

In the 14th century a division occurred in the Church of Rome, and the two
factions vied for superiority. One faction officially elected Pope Urban VI as
the infallible Head of the Church, while the other party elected Pope Clement
VII as the infallible Head of the Church.

That put two infallible Popes in power opposing each other. Pope Urban VI
was succeeded by Boniface IX in 1389 and later Pope Gregory XII. Pope
Clement VII-- called, historically, the Anti-Pope --was succeeded by Pope
Benedictine XIII in 1394. Then in 1409 a third party of reactionaries,
claiming to represent the true Church, elected Pope Alexander V as head of
the Roman hierarchy. Voilà. A triune papacy.

Then, in June, 1409, the infallible Pope Alexander V officially
excommunicated the other two infallible Popes, and gradually the incident
was resolved. (For an interesting discussion of this historical account see the
Encyclopaedia Britannica under the article on "The Papacy").

That, however, was not the only time when the Roman Church had more
than one infallible head. In 1058 Pope Benedict X was elected, but another
faction elected Pope Nicholas II. The feud between these two opposing
infallible Popes resulted in the expulsion of Pope Benedict and the selection
of Nicholas II as supreme head of the Church.

What is so ironic about Rome's past is that modern Catholicism is constantly
going on about Protestant schism while its own infallible papacy was so
bitterly divided in the past.

FYI: Were the Holy Ghost really leading Rome in its selection of Popes; there
would never be a divided vote when the college of cardinals meets in
conclave. Sadly, Popes are elected based upon a 2/3 majority rather than
unanimous approval. Makes me wonder who the Holy Ghost is leading: the
minority vote or the majority; or quite possibly neither

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Zeke
November 7th, 2015, 08:47 PM
A sizable amount of Paul's so-called letters have been determined to be forgeries.

Can't have the Gnostic Christ being taught by Paul so you bring in the editors, Yet the Christ within man that was supposed to be some new mystery was being taught by others before Paul's revelation was wrote about.
The logos of John was also a pagan concept, and many of the quotes in John were already used in prior cultures and Holy men, Gerald Massey, Robert Taylor also exposed the holy writ has being suspect , Alvin Boyd Kuhn's writings was the last huckleberry for the bloody Jesus historical society.

Cruciform
November 7th, 2015, 09:49 PM
So, rape and murder as the 'head of the church' is acceptable because he is the pope. Got it. Holding to that doctrine is pretty interesting......I wonder what else you stand by the papacy for.
Your complete ignorance of precisely what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility even IS is noted. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You can begin to properly educate yourself on this subject with a careful study of the information provided in Post #28 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4510933&postcount=28) above.

Cruciform
November 7th, 2015, 09:52 PM
The scripture, that is, God's holy word, is that unfallible and binding authority that points out the severity of the errors of the RCC.
Already decisively answered here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4510210&postcount=57).

Cruciform
November 7th, 2015, 09:53 PM
The scripture, that is, God's holy word, is that infallibly binding interpreter.God knows what He is talking about and He knew as He authored it who would be reading it and wanting to know what is on God's heart for His people.God is wise, He knew who would be reading it. He wrote it for people who want to know and believe and to those who want to know more and believe more of God's words, the truth.
Post #53

Brother Vinny
November 7th, 2015, 09:59 PM
:Popcorn:

aikido7
November 8th, 2015, 12:31 AM
Can't have the Gnostic Christ being taught by Paul so you bring in the editors, Yet the Christ within man that was supposed to be some new mystery was being taught by others before Paul's revelation was wrote about.
The logos of John was also a pagan concept, and many of the quotes in John were already used in prior cultures and Holy men, Gerald Massey, Robert Taylor also exposed the holy writ has being suspect , Alvin Boyd Kuhn's writings was the last huckleberry for the bloody Jesus historical society.I don't know where you get the "Gnostic" idea in the Pauline letters. I don't think I am looking in the right place.

The letters that have been determined to have been written in Paul's name were written later by his followers and they signed his name to them--which is not an unusual thing to happen in the ancient world.

The Bible contains remembered history, oral tradition, theologies, legends and proverbs. The Gospel of John--because it presents a Jesus who is profoundly different from the portrait disclosed in the other three gospels--is basically full of early Christian theology. Because of this, most historians do not recognize it as being historical.

Nevertheless, I still see John as being "holy writ."

turbosixx
November 8th, 2015, 06:43 AM
The Bible must be interpreted by human beings,

I agree, but the Rcc leaders are human beings too. The bible was written on an elementery grade level and tells us we can understand by reading.

2 Cor. 1:13 For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end;


and the mere fact that Protestantism is a fractured chaos of 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects is sufficient proof that your final comment above is simply unworkable in reality.

There’s disagreement and fractures within the rcc as well. If for argument sake Jesus did found the rcc then wouldn’t the protestant movement be a fracturing of the rcc. It just goes to prove what Paul told Timothy.
2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
Our challenge is to determine who is preaching sound doctrine, and the way we do that is compare it to scripture.



Also, nowhere in Scripture can one find a text stating that the Bible is "sufficient" in a numerical, or formal, sense.

The canon is the canon for a reason. Great effort went into being sure that the included books were inspired by God.

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The writings of the rcc are not inspired by God and are not scripture. If they were, there would be no contradictions with the canon that everyone agrees is written by inspired writers.




Finally, Scripture itself contains positive teaching that apostolic oral Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is the word of God, and is to be affirmed and followed by believers.

I totally agree, we are to follow the apostles. The leaders of the rcc are not apostles.

oatmeal
November 8th, 2015, 08:29 AM
Or the clear statement that the Bible is not of private interpretation:

"So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

To be guided is certainly not the same thing as privately interpreting

oatmeal
November 8th, 2015, 08:31 AM
Already decisively answered here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4510210&postcount=57).

Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation.

oatmeal
November 8th, 2015, 08:31 AM
Post #53

Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation

oatmeal
November 8th, 2015, 08:39 AM
Here (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) is a list of biblical texts on the subject.


The Bible must be interpreted by human beings, and the mere fact that Protestantism is a fractured chaos of 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects is sufficient proof that your final comment above is simply unworkable in reality.
Also, nowhere in Scripture can one find a text stating that the Bible is "sufficient" in a numerical, or formal, sense.
Finally, Scripture itself contains positive teaching that apostolic oral Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is the word of God, and is to be affirmed and followed by believers.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.

Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.

The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.

To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.

If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCC

Jesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17

Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.

The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture. It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.

turbosixx
November 8th, 2015, 08:48 AM
The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.

Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.

The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.

To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.

If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCC

Jesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17

Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.

The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture. It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.

Excellent point. I don't like the word interpret. I see it as understanding. We either understand the truth or not.

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:09 AM
The criminal has no infallible and binding authority.

Most disgusting institution that has ever existed on this planet.

ISIS is kinder and gentler than the RCC was in its hay day.

You have no clue of what you're talking about. Especially coming from somebody who has this in their signature...


For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.

It's people like you who cause people like me to NEVER call myself a Protestant. Offensive people like you belong in the PIT! And you'll eventually get there with the spirit of unforgiveness you possess.

Mat 6:14-15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Psalm 55:12-14 It is not an enemy who taunts me—
I could bear that.
It is not my foes who so arrogantly insult me—
I could have hidden from them.
Instead, it is you—my equal,
my companion and close friend.
What good fellowship we once enjoyed
as we walked together to the house of God.

Mar 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Luuk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Mat 6:14-15
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mat 5:23-24 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:11 AM
It doesn't really mater who's orthodoxy we choose to tie ourselves to, if any. What really matters is who we are becoming as a result of our choices. Religion can't save anyone, nor condemn anyone. We do that to ourselves.


Chrysotom said,



Jesus built the church
and
it was the church that gave us the bible
so
pay attention to His church


At least some people have some common sense on the forum!

Zeke
November 8th, 2015, 09:22 AM
I don't know where you get the "Gnostic" idea in the Pauline letters. I don't think I am looking in the right place.

The letters that have been determined to have been written in Paul's name were written later by his followers and they signed his name to them--which is not an unusual thing to happen in the ancient world.

The Bible contains remembered history, oral tradition, theologies, legends and proverbs. The Gospel of John--because it presents a Jesus who is profoundly different from the portrait disclosed in the other three gospels--is basically full of early Christian theology. Because of this, most historians do not recognize it as being historical.

Nevertheless, I still see John as being "holy writ."

The mystery that Paul said was revealed to him is a Gnostic concept, that being Christ within you Colossians 1:27, that was being taught by others/Gnostic schools prior to the christian age.

As far as the first epistles Galatians is said to be the first one circulated, (before the four Gospels) I also agree some of Paul's epistles were ghost written and tampered with to make it seem like he believed in a historical Jesus. The Acts letter distorts his conversion and when compared they are pretty easy to see once the veil of denial programming is removed.

John has some pearls, yet some of sayings attributed to the Logos can be found in other ancient cultures and periods.

WeberHome
November 8th, 2015, 09:58 AM
-
Christ's believing followers don't pray to his mom because the spirit of God's
son compels them to pray elsewhere.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

Abba is an Aramaic word that means, among other things, dad, daddy, pop,
papa, padre, dada, or father, et al. Abba isn't a formal title; it's a filial
vocative. For example: when I'm out in the garage working, and my son and
his mother are in the kitchen talking about me, the noun "dad" merely tells
my wife who my son is talking about. But when he wants to get my attention
by calling out: Dad! Where are you? Then "dad" is a vocative.

Anyway; what it boils down to is this: the spirit of God's son always compels
Christ's believing followers to call out to his Father, never to his mother, and
the reason for that is actually quite simple. Christ always prays to his
Father; never to his mother; ergo: the Father's children exhibit the very
same behavior because the spirit of Christ compels them to pray like he
does.

That, by the way, is a pretty good litmus test. If somebody is comfortable
praying to Christ's mom, they give away the fact that they lack the spirit of
God's son; which means of course that they have not yet undergone
adoption into His home.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

The Bible says to pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18, Jude 1:20). When people pray
in the Spirit; they pray in accordance with Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:15. In other
words: they don't pray to Christ's mother; they pray to his Father.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 11:16 AM
The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.



The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.

How in the world do people come up with this stuff? "Scripture must not be interpreted by humans,"...?

You DON'T understand the very verse you quoted!

First of all understand the word 'private'....

...pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The word 'interpretation' isn't the word, 'interpret'.

Interpretation is epilysis

2 Peter 1:20 is the only place the word 'interpretation' is used in the bible. It does indicate a loosening and comes from the Greek word epilyō meaning to...

to clear (a controversy), decide, settle
to explain (what is obscure and hard to understand)

The word interpret is a completely different word...
interpret...

diermēneuō

to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound
to translate into one's native language

In other words, the verse is NOT implying that the scriptures must not be interpreted by humans. What it does imply is that no ONE person has these obscure and controversial prophecies all figured out!

You cannot define the word interpretation by the word 'interpret'. They are two completely different words.


Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.

That's incorrect. Our Job is to do both. We really cannot do one without the other if we really want to attain the truth. To interpret is to..."to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound to translate into one's native language".

To rightly divide is to confirm one's interpretation by making a straight and accurate cut. Better yet it means to, "accurately handle the word of truth." A little here, a little there...


To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.

If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCC

Jesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17

Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.

The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture. It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.

You are very misled. Typical of Protestants who do little homework of their own and who have accepted the teachings of their misled superiors.

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 11:17 AM
A sizable amount of Paul's so-called letters have been determined to be forgeries.

Say what? By whom?

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 11:23 AM
Your complete ignorance of precisely what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility even IS is noted. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You can begin to properly educate yourself on this subject with a careful study of the information provided in Post #28 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4510933&postcount=28) above.

I read it and I read others. It still all boils down to a humans opinion being considered infallible because of their position and supposed tradition. This is simply biblical lunacy. I have no trouble with the pope, but he is not the Messiah and the actions of previous popes should be indictment enough of that fact.

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 11:41 AM
Your complete ignorance of precisely what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility even IS is noted. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You can begin to properly educate yourself on this subject with a careful study of the information provided in Post #28 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4510933&postcount=28) above.

Here ya go: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-infallibility.htm

ok doser
November 8th, 2015, 11:55 AM
crucyform's post 28:
I hold to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility), yes.

my response to crucyform's post 28:
even the ones who are widely recognized as being corrupt? :freak:

crucyforms response:
Your question has already been answered in Post #28 above.

admit it dude - you're a bot, right? :chuckle:

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 12:00 PM
crucyform's post 28:

my response to crucyform's post 28:

crucyforms response:

admit it dude - you're a bot, right? :chuckle:

Sounds legit. I'm starting to respond to him with things I find on the Web. I hope he takes it seriously. It would save me so much time in writing.

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 04:57 PM
I agree, but the Rcc leaders are human beings too.
Very true. The questiion is which human beings possess the inherent doctrinal authority from Jesus Christ to explain Scripture in a manner which is binding and authoritative upon the faithful. Is it [1] Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com./the_church.html), or is it [2] your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?


The bible was written on an elementery grade level and tells us we can understand by reading.
Your assumption of the supposed perspicuity of Scripture is addressed here (http://themichigancatholic.com/2015/05/the-clarity-of-scripture-and-the-role-of-the-church/), here (http://shamelesspopery.com/six-reasons-to-reject-the-perspicuity-of-scripture/), and here (http://www.ancient-future.net/plainmeaning.html).


There’s disagreement and fractures within the rcc as well.
Not in any formal doctrinal sense. The Catholic Church maintains an ongoing theological unity, and has for the past two millennia.


Our challenge is to determine who is preaching sound doctrine, and the way we do that is compare it to scripture.
"...to scripture" as infallibly and authoritatively interpreted by whom, exactly...?


The canon is the canon for a reason. Great effort went into being sure that the included books were inspired by God.
...and who possessed the inherent doctrinal authority to bindingly define the biblical canon?---The one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) in the 4th century A.D.


2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
No one here is disputing the divine inspiration of Scripture. We fully agree on that point.


The writings of the rcc are not inspired by God and are not scripture.
The Church has never claimed otherwise. However, the formal teachings of Christ's Church don't have to be inspired Scripture in order to be both infallible and authoritative. To assume so is to buy into a notion that simply didn't exist in the Christian Church until the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. For example, see this (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html), this (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html), and this (http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num6.htm).


I totally agree, we are to follow the apostles. The leaders of the rcc are not apostles.
The ministry of the bishops---the apostles' ordained successors---is, however, fully apostolic. Thus, their doctrinal authority is equal to that of the apostles (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:02 PM
Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation.
Post #53

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:04 PM
Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation
Post #53

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:05 PM
The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCCJesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture.It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.
Post #53

aikido7
November 8th, 2015, 05:06 PM
Say what? By whom?Historical researchers who are steeped from a lifetime's acquaintance with ancient texts.

I suppose they use methods like the FBI did when they found out who the Unabomber was. The culprit had written some "testimony and social critique" using the same words and vocabulary that he used in his writings to the media after each of his crimes.

And, of course, signing the name of one's teacher to their own writings was a common occurrence in ancient times. If they learned from Paul, they felt that Paul would bless their own theologies because they themselves saw them as something Paul might agree with.

Scholars have also found several instances in Paul's letters where he inserted an actual quote from other ancient secular writings at the time without identifying them as coming from elsewhere.

There has been historical study of the Bible since the late 1700s.

Just recently archaeologists have uncovered remains of two large Roman fish processing plants on the Sea of Galilee. These discoveries bears out the economic studies that have been done with the first-century world of Jesus's day.

The economy back then was precarious. Poverty was widespread (most of Jesus's sayings are about the poor and the income gap between the rich and the destitute) and folks were getting kicked off their small farms and losing their homes.

This inequality eventually resulted in the Roman-Jewish War of the 70s. The Middle East was a conflagration just waiting to happen.

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:06 PM
I read it and I read others. It still all boils down to a humans opinion being considered infallible because of their position and supposed tradition. This is simply biblical lunacy. I have no trouble with the pope, but he is not the Messiah and the actions of previous popes should be indictment enough of that fact.
Back to Post #28 above.

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:08 PM
Here ya go: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-infallibility.htm
Already answered---and refuted---in previous posts.

turbosixx
November 8th, 2015, 05:09 PM
"...to scripture" as infallibly and authoritatively interpreted by whom, exactly...?


You. You and you alone will give account for yourself.

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:10 PM
admit it dude - you're a bot, right? :chuckle:
Come back if you ever manage to come up with an actual disproof of the content of Post #28 above.

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:12 PM
Sounds legit. I'm starting to respond to him with things I find on the Web. I hope he takes it seriously. It would save me so much time in writing.
Likewise. But trust me: there isn't a single anti-Catholic "argument" that I haven't encountered in my past fourteen years as a Catholic.

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 05:15 PM
You. You and you alone will give account for yourself.
Your answer, then, is that YOU possess the inherent doctrinal authority to bindingly interpret the Scriptures on behalf of the faithful. Is that correct?

Cedarbay
November 8th, 2015, 05:56 PM
-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true Christian religion. Some Catholics see red
whenever the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some
Catholics see criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as
hatred for Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is a reliable authority in all
matters pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and
read it. A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968
suggested that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is a reliable
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 47 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==Interesting testimony.

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 06:07 PM
Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continueto follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and theHoly Bible?

I'm a Catholic and I can tell you that not one Catholic that I know follows ROME. The ones that I know are friends and fellowship with Protestants. I don't follow anybody but Christ. But I do know many Protestants who think they follow their clans of Darby, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, fundamentalism, and many more who are no better.

Here I am a Catholic, who went Protestant, who was offended several times, and went BACK to Catholicism!

Praise be to God!

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 06:23 PM
Already answered---and refuted---in previous posts.

Nope. I posted a refutation. Take the time to read it. I've been taking the time to read your novel length articles you've posted.

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 06:34 PM
Nope. I posted a refutation.
Not so far.


Take the time to read it.
Post #82.

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 06:45 PM
Not so far.


Post #82.

Does that mean you've read it? Or did you discount it already?

glassjester
November 8th, 2015, 07:27 PM
Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

Did the Church that Christ founded in the first century have a hierarchy?

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 07:40 PM
Did the Church that Christ founded in the first century have a hierarchy?

Absolutely. All that information is found in the Didache.

http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html

glassjester
November 8th, 2015, 07:47 PM
Absolutely. All that information is found in the Didache.

http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html

You and I agree. I'm wondering why WeberHome thought of the above-quoted text as a dilemma, where there was no dilemma at all.

So, WH, did the Church that Christ founded in the first century have a hierarchy?

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 10:29 PM
Does that mean you've read it? Or did you discount it already?
I went through it and, as I said, noticed nothing that I hadn't already encountered---and answered---a great many times before.

WeberHome
November 9th, 2015, 07:42 AM
-

did the Church that Christ founded in the first century have a
hierarchy?

The hierarchy about which I wrote in post #1 is the so-called Holy See
based in Vatican City.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Idolater
November 9th, 2015, 02:53 PM
Leviticus 17:11-14

We suppose that Christ knew this passage before uttering John 6:53-54, right?

-
†. John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

The kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting Christ's flesh, and correctly
imbibing his blood, is eternal life.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Note the tense of Christ's "has" verb in John 6:54. It's present tense rather
than future, indicating that people who correctly ingest his flesh, and
correctly imbibe his blood, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no
waiting period.

There has never been a time when eternal life didn't exist because it's the
kind of life that sustains God; viz: eternal life always was, it always is, and it
always shall be. In other words: eternal life is an imperishable kind of life
that's impervious to death, decay, and the aging process. Were that not
true, it would be possible to assassinate God.

That being the case, then the kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting
Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, never wears out nor ever
wears off because in order for it to wear out or wear off, it would have to
die; which, by eternal life's very nature, is impossible. If it were possible for
eternal life to die, then it wouldn't be eternal.

So then, once someone obtains eternal life, they never need to obtain it
again seeing as how eternal life is impervious to death-- and seeing as how
it's impervious to death, then it's impervious to the wages of sin (Rom 6:23)
which means that it would not die in between confessions and/or in between
doses of Eucharist.

Christ compared himself to the manna that Yhvh's people subsisted on out in
the wilderness prior to their entry into the land of Canaan. Manna was
nourishing, but it was merely an organic sustenance; viz: it didn't have any
life in it. No matter how much of the stuff that the people consumed, manna
couldn't keep them alive forever. They eventually died. And the people
couldn't get by on just one dose of manna; they had to consume it on a daily
basis or risk starvation.

In contrast, Christ is far and away superior to organic sustenance. His body
and blood aren't common sustenance, they are life; and the quality of the
life is such that people need to partake of it just once and they will live
forever-- they don't have to keep eating and drinking his blood over and
over and over again as if it were manna.

Now, the trick to obtaining this benefit is in correctly partaking of Christ's
flesh and blood. When people do it incorrectly, they fail to obtain eternal life;
ergo: they risk passing on with only human life; which is a perishable kind of
life that will not survive the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
20:10-15.

Q: How does one partake of Christ's body and blood correctly?

A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, either literal or transubstantiated, they are going to have to first
make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how Christ
rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were
Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant
wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the
jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the
Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood
(Lev 7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would
have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the
position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.

Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were
cryptic. Though his words look like ordinary language and grammar; they
said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.

†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit

Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need
some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient
in spirit-speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

turbosixx
November 9th, 2015, 07:34 PM
Your answer, then, is that YOU possess the inherent doctrinal authority to bindingly interpret the Scriptures on behalf of the faithful. Is that correct?


The words of Jesus are the authority of doctrine.
Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

The words of Jesus are what we will be judged by on judgment day not the words of men.
Jn. 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

Mine and my loved ones souls eternal destiny is too valuable to trust to the interpretations of men, especially when their interpretations contradict inspired word.
Matt. 15:9 And in vain they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

God did not give us a bible we cannot understand and we are each individually responsible what we do with it.
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Think about the Jehovah Witness. The society produces writings and tells the members they cannot interpret scripture. The society even corrected the canon producing their own version. If you have debated with them as I have, you will see they are convinced and can prove what they say is true, but they do it based on the writings of the society's (men's) interpretations.

The rcc is the same way. I will never give any credence to or waste my time with THIS or HERE because those are writings of men. If you want to refute something I say or prove a point, I will only consider scripture.

disturbo
November 9th, 2015, 07:46 PM
The words of Jesus are the authority of doctrine.

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.


If you want to refute something I say or prove a point, I will only consider scripture.


How about considering Mathew 28:18. You've taken it out of context. It has nothing to do with 'doctrine.'

turbosixx
November 9th, 2015, 08:06 PM
Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.



How about considering Mathew 28:18. You've taken it out of context. It has nothing to do with 'doctrine.'

In your understanding, what does it mean?

Looking at the context, it looks like doctrine to me.
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 11:00 PM
The words of Jesus are the authority of doctrine.
Again: "the words of Jesus" as infallibly and authoritatively interpreted by whom? By you (your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect)? Or by Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)?

Back to Post #73 above.

turbosixx
November 9th, 2015, 11:02 PM
Again: "the words of Jesus" as infallibly and authoritatively interpreted by whom? By you (your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect)? Or by Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)?

Back to Post #73 above.


Who do you believe when the rcc and the canon are in contradiction?

brewmama
November 9th, 2015, 11:17 PM
Who do you believe when the rcc and the canon are in contradiction?

When are they?

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 11:17 PM
Who do you believe when the rcc and the canon are in contradiction?
Example...?

everready
November 9th, 2015, 11:25 PM
The most feaful words a person could ever hear come at the judgment when Jesus says this:

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

He said he "never" knew them meaning they didn't have a personal relationship with them.

Why then does your man in Rome tell the world it is a dangerous thing to have a personal relationship with Jesus?


everready

everready
November 9th, 2015, 11:29 PM
i know "look in post 57"


everready

turbosixx
November 9th, 2015, 11:39 PM
Example...?

Marriage. To my knowlege scripture only gives one reason for divorce.

Matt. 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

The rcc gives a whole list of acceptable reasons to break a marriage. Here's an interesting one.

Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area.

On whose authority can a married couple be separated for reasons other than sexuall immorality?

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 11:41 PM
Why then does your man in Rome tell the world it is a dangerous thing to have a personal relationship with Jesus?
Proof, please. :yawn:

turbosixx
November 9th, 2015, 11:43 PM
When are they?

Most of the time. One example:

Matt. 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

brewmama
November 10th, 2015, 01:58 AM
Most of the time. One example:

Matt. 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.


Do you not call your father "father", are you your children's father? What do you think Jesus was saying here?

Paul used the term many times, including about himself. So cherry-picking this verse and not understanding what it means is certainly not to your benefit.

So, if someone asks us, "Who is your father?", we can answer, "I have my natural father whom I call 'dad' or 'baba'. And I have my spiritual father, the 'papa' or 'pater', the priest who leads me and guides through the gospel of Jesus Christ to my one God and Father in heaven who has adopted me as His child." Let us imitate our natural and paternal fathers as they prayerfully and humbly intercede to Christ our God for our physical and spiritual healing

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 02:43 AM
Do you not call your father "father", are you your children's father? What do you think Jesus was saying here?

Paul used the term many times, including about himself. So cherry-picking this verse and not understanding what it means is certainly not to your benefit.

So, if someone asks us, "Who is your father?", we can answer, "I have my natural father whom I call 'dad' or 'baba'. And I have my spiritual father, the 'papa' or 'pater', the priest who leads me and guides through the gospel of Jesus Christ to my one God and Father in heaven who has adopted me as His child." Let us imitate our natural and paternal fathers as they prayerfully and humbly intercede to Christ our God for our physical and spiritual healing


I don't have all the answers and I haven’t studied this because I’ve never felt the need to. Jesus said call no man on earth father so why would I. I think we can both agree he is not talking about our biological father because they are our father. Who is our spiritual father? If God is our spiritual father can a man on earth be our spiritual father as well? Jesus isn't even referred to as father. Yes, Paul used the term to describe relationships but does that void what Jesus clearly instructed? I don't know of anyone in scripture called father other than God.

What do you think Jesus is saying?




Another example:
1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Catechism 969 Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

disturbo
November 10th, 2015, 08:44 AM
In your understanding, what does it mean?

Looking at the context, it looks like doctrine to me.
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;

The verse is better understood as 'every kind' of authority or power.

When Jesus said, 'all power' or 'all authority' is given to him in heaven and in earth, he's emphasizing that they have the support of his power and authority to fulfill the command to go and teach all nations.

chrysostom
November 10th, 2015, 09:06 AM
I don't have all the answers and I haven’t studied this because I’ve never felt the need to. Jesus said call no man on earth father so why would I. I think we can both agree he is not talking about our biological father because they are our father. Who is our spiritual father? If God is our spiritual father can a man on earth be our spiritual father as well? Jesus isn't even referred to as father. Yes, Paul used the term to describe relationships but does that void what Jesus clearly instructed? I don't know of anyone in scripture called father other than God.
What do you think Jesus is saying? ]

He taught us how to pray the Our Father

Jesus is saying call no man on earth God

brewmama
November 10th, 2015, 12:56 PM
I don't have all the answers and I haven’t studied this because I’ve never felt the need to. Jesus said call no man on earth father so why would I. I think we can both agree he is not talking about our biological father because they are our father. Who is our spiritual father? If God is our spiritual father can a man on earth be our spiritual father as well? Jesus isn't even referred to as father. Yes, Paul used the term to describe relationships but does that void what Jesus clearly instructed? I don't know of anyone in scripture called father other than God.

What do you think Jesus is saying?

"This tradition of spiritual fatherhood was part of the lifeblood of the early Church. Paul's understanding of himself as the father of the Church of Corinth, though, raises a very old controversy within the Christian world. Many Christian denominations have since at least the Protestant Reformation rejected the title of "father" for spiritual elders, despite the clear fact that St. Paul and other great early leaders of the Church thought of themselves as exactly this.

This controversy springs from the way some Christians have interpreted Our Lord's words in Matthew 23:9, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." It's important to remember that the apostle Paul seems to not believe this was Christ's intent. In addition to the Epistle passage above, there are several other passages from Scripture in which Paul refers to the idea of spiritual fatherhood. In fact, even one of the earliest leaders of the Protestant Reformation - John Calvin himself - believed that Paul was correct to refer to himself as "father". Calvin wrote, "While Paul claims for himself the appellation of father, he does it in such a manner as not to take away or diminish the smallest portion of the honor which is due to God. ... God alone is the Father of all in faith ... But they whom he is graciously pleased to employ as his ministers for that purpose, are likewise allowed to share with him in his honor, while, at the same time, He parts with nothing that belongs to himself."


Now, let's also remember that in Matthew 23, Christ also says "do not be called teacher". Yet, elsewhere in the Gospels, Our Lord himself uses this title for others, such as Nicodemus.

In this "call no man father" passage, Our Lord is making a particular point for a very particular audience. He is contrasting His own living truth with the teachings of the "scribes and Pharisees" who were convinced that only they understood God's Law and were fit to interpret it. Christ is accusing the rabbis opposed to him of deliberately twisting God's Word to suit their own desires. Christ stood in opposition to those who seek to elevate themselves and place themselves before God.

Our Lord wants true teachers. He wants true spiritual fathers who can take on the mantle of spiritual leadership. But He only wants teachers and fathers who understand that they themselves are not the source of the Tradition which they are passing on, but are instead conduits for the Tradition of God.
This tradition of spiritual fatherhood was part of the lifeblood of the early Church. Paul's understanding of himself as the father of the Church of Corinth, though, raises a very old controversy within the Christian world. Many Christian denominations have since at least the Protestant Reformation rejected the title of "father" for spiritual elders, despite the clear fact that St. Paul and other great early leaders of the Church thought of themselves as exactly this.

http://www.antiochian.org/node/19193

HisServant
November 10th, 2015, 01:01 PM
Since Rome is irrelevant... there is no need to stand up to it. Just go about doing as Christ instructed and the Holy Spirit leads and don't concern yourself even a little about them.

chrysostom
November 10th, 2015, 01:15 PM
Since Rome is irrelevant... there is no need to stand up to it. Just go about doing as Christ instructed and the Holy Spirit leads and don't concern yourself even a little about them.

good post
don't worry about us
just get on with practicing your beliefs
or
don't practice them
if
that is what you believe

aikido7
November 10th, 2015, 02:12 PM
Jesus stood up to the powers and principalities of Rome and proved that death is not the end.

Who is it today who is standing up to the powers and principalities of the American Empire?

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 03:07 PM
Since Rome is irrelevant... there is no need to stand up to it. Just go about doing as Christ instructed and the Holy Spirit leads and don't concern yourself even a little about them.
Since HS is irrelevant, there is no need to stand up to him. Just go about doing as Christ instructed by the Holy Spirit through his one historic Church (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; cf. Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6), and don't concern yourself even a little about HS. :yawn:

HisServant
November 10th, 2015, 03:34 PM
Since HS is irrelevant, there is no need to stand up to him. Just go about doing as Christ instructed by the Holy Spirit through his one historic Church (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; cf. Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6), and don't concern yourself even a little about HS. :yawn:

But has been explained to you multiple times... history, archaeology, and common sense proves that your claim that the RCC is Jesus one historical church is patently false.... its impossible.

So either live by the spirit or subject yourself to the Roman invented religion that will lead to certain spiritual death... its a no brainier.

I wish more people would snap back to reality and realize that the RCC is nothing more than the longest running scam in history.

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 03:56 PM
But has been explained to you multiple times... history, archaeology, and common sense proves that your claim that the RCC is Jesus one historical church is patently false.... its impossible.So either live by the spirit or subject yourself to the Roman invented religion that will lead to certain spiritual death... its a no brainier.I wish more people would snap back to reality and realize that the RCC is nothing more than the longest running scam in history.
The entirely non-authoritative opinions (traditions of men) that you have imbibed from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 06:32 PM
Jesus is saying call no man on earth God

And he did so by telling us to call no man on earth "father" because "for One is your Father, He who is in heaven"

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 06:44 PM
And he did so by telling us to call no man on earth "father" because "for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."
Addressed---and corrected---here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 07:14 PM
This tradition of spiritual fatherhood was part of the lifeblood of the early Church.

I don't recognize the early church as a basis for understanding. It's clear from scripture the early church had many problems. The only way to determine truth is from inspired writings.


Paul's understanding of himself as the father of the Church of Corinth, though, raises a very old controversy within the Christian world. Many Christian denominations have since at least the Protestant Reformation rejected the title of "father" for spiritual elders, despite the clear fact that St. Paul and other great early leaders of the Church thought of themselves as exactly this.


Yes, Paul’s understanding of himself. Are we really going to void what Jesus instructed based on that? For what possible reason would we call a man “father”? 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places</SPAN>

God does have an office of spiritual guides for the church.
Acts 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Scripture tells us what they are to be called and gives us qualifications for them and
Paul went around appointing these spiritual guides, they are elders.
Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church,</SPAN>
1 Tim. 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach,….


We have clear scripture “call no man father”. We have clear scripture instructing who are to be the spiritual guides of the church. Can that all be thrown out because Paul referred to himself as a father?

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 07:15 PM
Addressed---and corrected---here (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

I'm not gonna read here

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 08:33 PM
I'm not gonna read here
Your avoidance of relevant information is noted.

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 08:37 PM
Your avoidance of relevant information is noted.


That's the problem, writings of men is not relevant information.

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 08:38 PM
That's the problem, writings of men is not relevant information.

Which invalidates anything turbosixx has to say, as well.

:devil:

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 08:52 PM
Which invalidates anything turbosixx has to say, as well.
Indeed. It also conveniently misses the fact that the New Testament documents are also the "writings of men."

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 08:57 PM
Which invalidates anything turbosixx has to say, as well.

:devil:

You obviously haven't been reading my post.

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 08:58 PM
Indeed. It also conveniently misses the fact that the New Testament documents are also the "writings of men."

True, but not merely the words of man, which I believe turbosixx was going for.

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 08:59 PM
Indeed. It also conveniently misses the fact that the New Testament documents are also the "writings of men."

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 09:00 PM
You obviously haven't been reading my post.

Why should I? It's not like they'll have relevant information.

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 09:02 PM
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Meh. Paul is talking about the Old Testament here. Burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 09:03 PM
Why should I? It's not like they'll have relevant information.

If all you’re going to do is make snide comments instead of debate what each of us understand to be truth, then fine by me.

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 09:06 PM
Meh. Paul is talking about the Old Testament here. Burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

2 Pt. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 09:06 PM
If all you’re going to do is make snide comments instead of debate what each of us understand to be truth, then fine by me.

Thanks for your permission!

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 09:08 PM
Your avoidance of relevant information is noted.


Speaking of avoidance, you haven't commented on my post #104 where the rcc contradicts scripture.

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 09:11 PM
2 Pt. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

You're using Peter's writing to prove what Paul was making reference to? Weak sauce. You can prove from this that Peter sees Paul's writings as Scripture (but not, specifically, which writings). You can't prove that Paul considered Peter's writings Scripture from this passage, nor that he considered his own writings Scripture.

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 09:14 PM
You're using Peter's writing to prove what Paul was making reference to? Weak sauce. You can prove from this that Peter sees Paul's writings as Scripture (but not, specifically, which writings). You can't prove that Paul considered Peter's writings Scripture from this passage, nor that he considered his own writings Scripture.

Do you consider Peter's writings scripture?

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 09:19 PM
You're using Peter's writing to prove what Paul was making reference to? Weak sauce. You can prove from this that Peter sees Paul's writings as Scripture (but not, specifically, which writings). You can't prove that Paul considered Peter's writings Scripture from this passage, nor that he considered his own writings Scripture.

Jesus talking to the 12.

Jn. 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Jn. 16:12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 09:23 PM
Do you consider Peter's writings scripture?

Who cares what I think? My prose here will be a writing of man, and thus contain no relevant information.

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 09:34 PM
Who cares what I think? My prose here will be a writing of man, and thus contain no relevant information.

If you understand the truth, I care. I'm here to challenge my understanding of truth. I will entertain the thoughts of others as long as they can be proven by scripture.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


If something is in contradiction to scripture, can it be truth?

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 09:47 PM
If you understand the truth, I care. I'm here to challenge my understanding of truth. I will entertain the thoughts of others as long as they can be proven by scripture.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


If something is in contradiction to scripture, can it be truth?

Context is everything. I can cherry pick Scripture to defend baby-killing.

Also, interpretation is everything. If I interpret the Lord's Day to be Sunday while you believe it to be Saturday, and we both have stacks of verses to support our positions, then we'll ever be at loggerheads on the Sabbath-keeping issue.

So context and interpretation are everything. Probably some other things as well, but I'm getting sleepy.

Funny. People like to underline all sorts of parts of 2 Tim 3:16 except the "profitable for". It's like the one verse they want to say everything stops short of saying quite enough.

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 10:00 PM
Context is everything. I can cherry pick Scripture to defend baby-killing.

Also, interpretation is everything. If I interpret the Lord's Day to be Sunday while you believe it to be Saturday, and we both have stacks of verses to support our positions, then we'll ever be at loggerheads on the Sabbath-keeping issue.

So context and interpretation are everything. Probably some other things as well, but I'm getting sleepy.

Funny. People like to underline all sorts of parts of 2 Tim 3:16 except the "profitable for". It's like the one verse they want to say everything stops short of saying quite enough.

I'm curious what you are wanting to get out of this forum?

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 10:07 PM
I'm curious what you are wanting to get out of this forum?

An honorary Lifetime Membership subscription.

Oh, wait, do you mean this particular thread?

I don't know. Certain ideas sit on my mind like wounds that won't scab over properly, and itch at me until I pick at them and yellowish pus drains out and. . ..

Curious. How do you know any of the Bible is Scripture?

turbosixx
November 10th, 2015, 10:22 PM
An honorary Lifetime Membership subscription.

Oh, wait, do you mean this particular thread?

No, I meant in general.


I don't know. Certain ideas sit on my mind like wounds that won't scab over properly, and itch at me until I pick at them and yellowish pus drains out and. . ..

Nice mental image. :)


Curious. How do you know any of the Bible is Scripture?

I have faith that God gave us his word and the bible is it. Nothing else comes close. Everything takes faith, what do we REALLY know.

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 10:37 PM
True, but not merely the words of man, which I believe turbosixx was going for.
Agreed. Therefore, the mere fact that something is "written by men" in no way rules out its being infallible and authoritative upon believers.

Brother Vinny
November 10th, 2015, 10:39 PM
No, I meant in general.

I don't know. I used to want the best-defended theological Castle from which I could browbeat naysayers. Now I just want to examine what it means to believe.


I have faith that God gave us his word and the bible is it. Nothing else comes close. Everything takes faith, what do we REALLY know.

But. . . why those 66 books? Who are you trusting to have gotten those books right? Did you just come to faith one day and someone said, "Oh yeah, here's a manual. You have to believe all that's in here to fit in?". Or did you read the book in its entirety and weigh the matter for yourself?

I admit, I haven't read the whole thing. I have to take it on faith Isaiah is Scripture, cos it frankly perplexes me. I have to take it on faith Leviticus is Scripture because I have read it, and it is so dull--rule after rule, the bulk of which have nothing to do with Christianity. But I am fascinated by the question of canon, how we got what we got, and it is one of the open sores that won't go away.

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 10:39 PM
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Yet, Scripture itself teaches both this (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html) and this (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).

Cruciform
November 10th, 2015, 10:51 PM
Speaking of avoidance, you haven't commented on my post #104 where the rcc contradicts scripture.
Here (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/05/divorce-and-remarriage-in-case-of.html) you go.

MarcATL
November 11th, 2015, 08:01 AM
I hold to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility), yes.
Proof positive that you never read, don't believe and/or simply choose to ignore what the Bible teaches.

MarcATL
November 11th, 2015, 08:29 AM
I'm a Catholic and I can tell you that not one Catholic that I know follows ROME. The ones that I know are friends and fellowship with Protestants. I don't follow anybody but Christ. But I do know many Protestants who think they follow their clans of Darby, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, fundamentalism, and many more who are no better.

Here I am a Catholic, who went Protestant, who was offended several times, and went BACK to Catholicism!

Praise be to God!
Why did you leave?
Where did you go to?
What were the offenses that caused you to return?

Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation.

JonahofAkron
November 11th, 2015, 12:42 PM
Proof positive that you never read, don't believe and/or simply choose to ignore what the Bible teaches.
I posted some refutations from a website to answer in kind to Cruciform, but it was to no avail.

aikido7
November 11th, 2015, 01:47 PM
Do you not call your father "father", are you your children's father? What do you think Jesus was saying here?

Paul used the term many times, including about himself. So cherry-picking this verse and not understanding what it means is certainly not to your benefit.

So, if someone asks us, "Who is your father?", we can answer, "I have my natural father whom I call 'dad' or 'baba'. And I have my spiritual father, the 'papa' or 'pater', the priest who leads me and guides through the gospel of Jesus Christ to my one God and Father in heaven who has adopted me as His child." Let us imitate our natural and paternal fathers as they prayerfully and humbly intercede to Christ our God for our physical and spiritual healing"Call no one on earth your father."

WeberHome
November 11th, 2015, 03:10 PM
-
†. Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
finished, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples. He said to them: When you pray, say: Father

There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament
Christianity-- nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers --either
commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much
as suggesting --that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or deceased
human beings: and for good reason. Christ-- himself a devoted, observant
Jew --never prayed to his mother, nor to celestial beings, nor to deceased
human beings, nor to anybody other than the one true God of the Jews: his
Father.

Since that was the Son's habit (and also his instructions), then that very
same compulsion should be evident in all God's kin since they are supposed
to be recipients of the only begotten Son's filial mentality.

†. Gal 4:6a . . And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts

The nature of a son's spirit is quite a bit different than the nature of a
father's spirit or the nature of a mother's spirit. In particular; Christ's spirit is
the mentality of God's offspring. So that anyone who truly has the Son's
spirit in their hearts should be experiencing the very same personal filial
bond with the Father that Jesus experiences.

Recipients of the spirit of His son are also recipients of another kind of sprit
too.

†. Rom 8:15-17 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

Here's how the spirit of adoption works:

If I were to meet President Barack Hussein Obama, I would have to make an
appointment first; and then stand back and address him as Sir or Mister
President. But his two daughters Sasha and Malia can run right up uninvited
and cling to his arm because he's their father; and they call him daddy.

Now if the Obama's should adopt a little boy some day, he will have all the
very same rights and privileges as the Obama's natural born daughters;
including a right to inherit. Their new son would have every right to run up
uninvited to Mr. Obama yelling: Daddy! Daddy! Daddy! and cling to his other
arm.

In other words: the spirit of adoption imparts to God's legal children a
heartfelt bond with God that enables them to feel the love, and the
friendship, and the security feelings that normal boys and girls feel with their
birth parents.

Some professing Christians think it's disrespectful to regard the Bible's God
as a dad. But that kind of thinking isn't the mentality of a child in the home;
no, that is the mentality of hired hands, and subjects, and vassals, and
slaves. I am none of those; no, I am kin to The King. There's a place of my
own all set around the table in His home waiting for me to arrive.

Do you see now why I cannot pray to Christ's mom? It's just simply
impossible to overcome not only my family ties to Christ's Father, but also
the powerful impulses of the spirit of adoption. The spirit of adoption always
wins out over all other spirits when it comes time for me to pray because it
just naturally compels me to use a vocative to get my adoptive Father's
attention without my even thinking about it.

Adoption severs any and all obligations related to one's biological parents;
and in the eyes of the law, one's adoptive parents are just as "biological" as
the originals. Though I was at one time the son of an earthly father, I am
now the legal son of a celestial father so that Christ is not only my master;
but also my sibling; and in point of fact, since his mom is a Christian, then
she too is my sibling; and all three of us share the same paterfamilias
together.

†. John 20:17 . . Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my
Father, and unto your Father; and unto my God, and unto your God.

What this all boils down to is that God's kin should feel an overwhelming
compulsion to pray to their adoptive Father without their having to be told
to. It should come naturally (so to speak), just as naturally as it came to
Jesus. And they should feel an equally overwhelming revulsion praying to
somebody else.

So then, people with a habit of praying to celestial beings, and/or ordinary
human beings like Christ's mom and departed saints, obviously have neither
the spirit of God's son in their heart, nor the spirit of adoption. No, the spirit
in their heart compels them to call out to pagan gods.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

chrysostom
November 11th, 2015, 03:29 PM
"Call no one on earth your father."

why do you think that is so important?

turbosixx
November 11th, 2015, 06:29 PM
But. . . why those 66 books? Who are you trusting to have gotten those books right? Did you just come to faith one day and someone said, "Oh yeah, here's a manual. You have to believe all that's in here to fit in?". Or did you read the book in its entirety and weigh the matter for yourself?

I admit, I haven't read the whole thing. I have to take it on faith Isaiah is Scripture, cos it frankly perplexes me. I have to take it on faith Leviticus is Scripture because I have read it, and it is so dull--rule after rule, the bulk of which have nothing to do with Christianity. But I am fascinated by the question of canon, how we got what we got, and it is one of the open sores that won't go away.

I haven't read it word for word but I've been a Christian for over 30 years and know it fairly well. I mostly focus on the NT because that is what we live under today.

I believe the OT was kept intact by the Jews over the years. As for the NT, I have faith that God guided it's formation as well as it's writing. Those that put it together did their best to make sure only inspired writers were included. Everything seems to harmonize.

If we don't believe it to be God's inspired writtings, what other options do we have?

Cruciform
November 11th, 2015, 06:34 PM
Proof positive that you never read, don't believe and/or simply choose to ignore what the Bible teaches.
Post your proof for this entirely unsubstantiated assertion.

Cruciform
November 11th, 2015, 06:37 PM
I posted some refutations from a website to answer in kind to Cruciform, but it was to no avail.
I posted some refutations from a website to answer in kind to JonahofAkron, but it was to no avail.

Cruciform
November 11th, 2015, 06:46 PM
"Call no one on earth your father."
See this (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/are-catholics-wrong-to-call-priests-father).

turbosixx
November 11th, 2015, 06:49 PM
Proof positive that you never read, don't believe and/or simply choose to ignore what the Bible teaches.

He doesn't read the bible because he can't understand it. Just ask him.

Cruciform
November 11th, 2015, 06:53 PM
He doesn't read the bible because he can't understand it. Just ask him.
Straw Man Fallacy. Try again.

turbosixx
November 11th, 2015, 07:14 PM
Straw Man Fallacy. Try again.

Isn't that what your saying here? Only "the church" can understand scripture.


Very true. The questiion is which human beings possess the inherent doctrinal authority from Jesus Christ to explain Scripture in a manner which is binding and authoritative upon the faithful. Is it [1] Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com./the_church.html), or is it [2] your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?

After thinking about this question I choose #3, individuals.

aikido7
November 11th, 2015, 07:53 PM
why do you think that is so important?I think it is important for people to know that Jesus made savage attacks against family values and did so very, very often.

Cruciform
November 11th, 2015, 10:52 PM
Isn't that what your saying here? Only "the Church" can understand scripture.
No. Sometimes individuals---including non-Catholics---interpret the Bible accurately, and come to authentic understandings of given passages. The point is that an individual has no objective and authoritative way of KNOWING that he's interpreted Scripture correctly, except by comparing his personal interpretation with the established teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

In short, doctrinal authority rest with the Magisterium (body of bishops) of Christ's Church, and not with the individual lay believer and his Bible (note that for the first millennium-and-a-half of Christian history, believers didn't even have Bibles!).


After thinking about this question I choose #3, individuals.
Which particular individual(s), then, in your opinion, possess the inherent doctrinal authority to infallibly and bindingly interpret the Bible in a manner which is binding upon all believers ? Please name these individuals.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
November 11th, 2015, 11:53 PM
The point is that an individual has no objective and authoritative way of KNOWING that he's interpreted Scripture correctly, except by comparing his personal interpretation with the established teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).



Are we talking about the same “one historic church” that for 600 years tortured and killed an estimated 50 million people? The same church that refused to allow the bible to be translated into different languages and killed those who tried? The same church that year after year some form of corruption is discovered. The same church where homosexual (celibate) priests that have ruined numerous kids’ lives are allowed to continue to be priest? I ‘m supposed to believe what they say is the truth because they say so? No thanks.

Brother Vinny
November 12th, 2015, 05:52 AM
Are we talking about the same “one historic church” that for 600 years tortured and killed an estimated 50 million people? The same church that refused to allow the bible to be translated into different languages and killed those who tried? The same church that year after year some form of corruption is discovered. The same church where homosexual (celibate) priests that have ruined numerous kids’ lives are allowed to continue to be priest? I ‘m supposed to believe what they say is the truth because they say so? No thanks.

This is an argument from outrage, BTW. Failure at orthopraxy (right doing) does not necessarily indicate a failure at orthodoxy (right doctrine).

I'm not saying your outrage is unjustified. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the argument at hand. You need to fight on the battlefield of doctrine.

MarcATL
November 12th, 2015, 08:24 AM
why do you think that is so important?
Better queftion is Why do you think you have the authority to ignore it?

MarcATL
November 12th, 2015, 08:26 AM
Post your proof for this entirely unsubstantiated assertion.
Just about every post of yours in this thread is my proof of that.

MarcATL
November 12th, 2015, 08:29 AM
No. Sometimes individuals---including non-Catholics---interpret the Bible accurately, and come to authentic understandings of given passages. The point is that an individual has no objective and authoritative way of KNOWING that he's interpreted Scripture correctly, except by comparing his personal interpretation with the established teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

In short, doctrinal authority rest with the Magisterium (body of bishops) of Christ's Church, and not with the individual lay believer and his Bible (note that for the first millennium-and-a-half of Christian history, believers didn't even have Bibles!).


Which particular individual(s), then, in your opinion, possess the inherent doctrinal authority to infallibly and bindingly interpret the Bible in a manner which is binding upon all believers ? Please name these individuals.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
I'd like to Scripture that supports your BOGUS belief that The Apostate Church has final authority.

I'll be waiting.

OCTOBER23
November 12th, 2015, 09:18 AM
Cruciformer said,

In short, doctrinal authority rest with the Magisterium (body of bishops) of Christ's Church,

and not with the individual lay believer and his Bible

(note that for the first millennium-and-a-half of Christian history,

believers didn't even have Bibles!).
=====================================

HE IS TELLING YOU THAT THE CATHOLICKS ARE SUPERIOR

AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WHO READS HIS BIBLE IS STUPID.:p:p:p:p

:madmad::mad::mad::madmad:

chrysostom
November 12th, 2015, 09:20 AM
Jesus gave us a church

His church gave us the bible

SaulToPaul
November 12th, 2015, 09:24 AM
Jesus gave us a church

His church gave us the bible

:chuckle:

HisServant
November 12th, 2015, 09:32 AM
Jesus gave us a church

His church gave us the bible

hmm... no. Not a single author of any book in the New Testament was Roman Catholic.

chrysostom
November 12th, 2015, 09:36 AM
hmm... no. Not a single author of any book in the New Testament was Roman Catholic.

who gave you your bible?

HisServant
November 12th, 2015, 09:37 AM
who gave you your bible?

The Holy Spirit inspired the individual books... so God did.

chrysostom
November 12th, 2015, 09:40 AM
The Holy Spirit inspired the individual books... so God did.

good for you

all our bibles are man made

HisServant
November 12th, 2015, 09:42 AM
good for you

all our bibles are man made

Yup, and so are your doctrines, traditions and dogma.

chrysostom
November 12th, 2015, 09:51 AM
Yup, and so are your doctrines, traditions and dogma.

can you share it with us
if
you have something that is not man made?

HisServant
November 12th, 2015, 09:54 AM
can you share it with us
if
you have something that is not man made?

What God writes on the hearts and minds of his children is not shareable... its an individual gift to his children.

You should know that!

chrysostom
November 12th, 2015, 09:56 AM
What God writes on the hearts and minds of his children is not shareable... its an individual gift to his children.

You should know that!

so you don't have a man made bible?

WeberHome
November 12th, 2015, 10:03 AM
-
Some co-workers of mine who soldiered in Viet Nam during the decade of
the 70's, related to me how they were detailed to go out into the jungle and
tally the number of VC dead so that high command could evaluate the
effectiveness of heavy bombing runs. The enemy's bodies were often ripped
to pieces making the dead difficult to count; so what the guys did was
scrounge up enough body parts to assemble a John Doe; then they could
enter the man they assembled into the log as a dead soldier. That came to
be known as a kick-count.

What Rome has done is cobble up an alleged biblical prayer by piecing
together excerpts of Gabriel's and Elizabeth's dialogue; in effect, scrounging
up a kick-count prayer.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "Hail Mary" is not an in-the-Bible
prayer, but is a developed prayer; and it was developed over a number of
years.

Here's the entire text of the so-called Hail Mary. Words enclosed in brackets
are editorial rather than scriptural.

Hail [Mary] full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb [Jesus].
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

"Hail, the Lord is with thee" was plagiarized from Gabriel's greeting at Luke
1:28 (Douay-Rheims version).

"[Mary] full of grace" is fabricated.

"blessed art thou amongst women" was plagiarized from Elizabeth's greeting
at Luke 1:42 (Douay-Rheims version).

"blessed is the fruit of thy womb" was also plagiarized from Elizabeth's
greeting at Luke 1:42 (Douay-Rheims version).

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our
death. Amen." is stated by the official Catechism of the Council of Trent to
have been fabricated by the Church itself.

Obviously then, portions of the Hail Mary, in its official form, are borrowed
from the Bible; but the body text of the prayer itself, is not actually in the
Bible; but rather, it's a man-made supplication concocted from plagiarized
excerpts of conversations between Christ's mom, Gabriel, and Elizabeth;
with an ending invocation composed entirely by Roman Catholic imagination.

It's abnormal to recite rote mantras like the Ave Maria because Christians
are commanded to approach heaven with candor.

†. Heb 4:16 . . Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we
may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The Greek word for "boldly" is parrhesia (par-rhay-see'-ah) which means all
out-spokenness, i.e. frankness, bluntness, and/or confidence.

Mantras like the Ave Maria are not what I call forthright, nor blunt, nor out
spoken, nor confident. They're actually not much different than chanting.

NOTE: I cannot imagine anybody talking to their own mother by reciting rote
mantras so how nutsy is it attempting to communicate with Christ's mother
by reciting a rote mantra?

Anyway, as far as prayer to Christ's mother is concerned; it's not even an
option.

†. Jude 1:20 . . Continue to pray as you are directed by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit directs the "you" to pray to their father; rather than to Jesus'
mom.

†. Rom 8:15-17 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Cedarbay
November 12th, 2015, 10:06 AM
good for you

all our bibles are man madeWhat version do you prefer?

HisServant
November 12th, 2015, 10:08 AM
so you don't have a man made bible?

Sure... but they are worthless without the Holy Spirit granting discernment and understanding.

chrysostom
November 12th, 2015, 10:08 AM
What version do you prefer?

nab

but many here know that I always quote from the kjv, their bible because it should not be an issue

they make it an issue

not us

Cruciform
November 12th, 2015, 02:12 PM
Are we talking about the same “one historic church” that for 600 years tortured and killed an estimated 50 million people? The same church that refused to allow the bible to be translated into different languages and killed those who tried? The same church that year after year some form of corruption is discovered. The same church where homosexual (celibate) priests that have ruined numerous kids’ lives are allowed to continue to be priest?
It's clear that you simply have no idea what you're talking about, as every single claim in your post is distorted and false. Better check your sources. Come back when you manage to stumble upon an actual argument against the Catholic Church being Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

Cruciform
November 12th, 2015, 02:15 PM
Just about every post of yours in this thread is my proof of that.
So, then, you actually have no proof for your entirely unsubstantiated claim. That's what I thought. So much, then, for your claim.

Cruciform
November 12th, 2015, 02:18 PM
I'd like to Scripture that supports your BOGUS belief that The Apostate Church has final authority. I'll be waiting.
Here (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) is a list of biblical texts on the topic.

Cruciform
November 12th, 2015, 02:24 PM
hmm... no. Not a single author of any book in the New Testament was Roman Catholic.
Who said anything about "ROMAN Catholics"? The Roman (Latin) Rite of the Catholic Church did not develop until after the Apostolic Era. Our position is that the one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. has been commonly known as "the Catholic Church" from the end of the 1st century A.D. So yes, the writers of the New Testament documents were indeed, in this sense, "Catholics."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
November 12th, 2015, 07:35 PM
Failure at orthopraxy (right doing) does not necessarily indicate a failure at orthodoxy (right doctrine).
True statement but what does scripture say? 15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits.
Most of the atrocities committed by the church are based or caused by their doctrine. I’m not aware of NT scripture that supports the torture and killing of people who speak against truth. I agree an individual’s failure to follow truth is not the fault of the church.



You need to fight on the battlefield of doctrine.
That's the problem. I recognize scripture as doctrine but Catholics view scripture through the lens of "church" doctrine. That makes it very difficult to do battle.

turbosixx
November 12th, 2015, 07:37 PM
Better check your sources.

What are your sources? Let me guess, the "church".

Brother Vinny
November 12th, 2015, 09:34 PM
That's the problem. I recognize scripture as doctrine but Catholics view scripture through the lens of "church" doctrine. That makes it very difficult to do battle.

Doubly difficult if you don't recognize you bring your own interpretive lens to Scripture, as well.

Cruciform
November 12th, 2015, 09:51 PM
What are your sources?
Scripture and the teachings of the early Christian Church (that is, as recorded in the writings of the Early Church Fathers).

turbosixx
November 12th, 2015, 10:50 PM
Doubly difficult if you don't recognize you bring your own interpretive lens to Scripture, as well.

Agreed. I do my very best to look past my filters and listen to others who point out my bias.

turbosixx
November 12th, 2015, 10:55 PM
Scripture and the teachings of the early Christian Church (that is, as recorded in the writings of the Early Church Fathers).

I meant what sources do you trust for the reported crimes for example, the killing of an estimated 50 million "heretics".

WeberHome
November 13th, 2015, 12:32 PM
-
CLAIM: There would be no Bible but for the Roman Catholic Church.

RESPONSE: That's a good example of the political axiom that if a lie is
repeated often enough; anon it will be accepted as fact.

It is totally false to say there would be no Bible but for the Catholic Church.
The Old Testament canon was already completed and in wide-spread
circulation throughout the Greek and Roman worlds way before Jesus
himself was even born.

While Nazi Germany may have pioneered rocket science; it's well to
remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not pioneer either the Old nor
the New Testament. Constantine's panel merely condensed an already
existing abundance of early Christian manuscripts that the Roman Catholic
Church itself did not author; and his motives were far more political than
spiritual. The man was a pig; and his panel chairman a tyrannical bully.

Modern Christian scholars of all denominations accept the existing New
Testament not because it was compiled by Catholic authorities, but because
they're own independent investigations have led them to conclude (as did
Constantine's panel) that extant manuscripts of the New Testament
scriptures are valid reproductions of the inspired originals.

Constantine himself didn't actually become a Christian until he was an old
man on his death bed. Although he didn't submit to Christianity's Christ
during his active years of life; he did manage to change the laws of his
kingdom so that it was no longer illegal to be a Christian within his
jurisdiction: which was quite prudent of him given that Christians were
multiplying and might have turned to rebellion. But rivalry and agitation
amongst the Christians themselves was a far greater problem.

It's a well known political principle that a nation divided in its religion cannot
be unified in its politics. It was Constantine's hope that a universal Christian
handbook would unify the Christian factions in his kingdom; subsequently
bringing about an improved domestic tranquility.

Rome has been very good at conquering people, and at forcing people to
take up its religion; but it has utterly failed to unify people's minds. Rome
may subdue people, it may subjugate them and control them, it may torture
and abuse them, and it may oppress them, but that doesn't mean it won
them. Catholicism its very own self is infected with schism. It has failed to
unify itself, let alone unify the rest of Christendom.

OBJECTION: How can you possibly think that God would let someone that
you label a "pig" be responsible for one of the holiest compilation of
documents to ever be introduced into the world of men?!

RESPONSE: While I'm answering that objection, keep in mind that
Constantine himself did not author the documents compiled in the New
Testament, nor did anybody on his committee.

Have you ever considered the operation of the holiest sacrifice for sins ever
offered in the world of men: Jesus Christ's crucifixion? Was he crucified by
Christian holy men? Was he crucified by Jewish holy men? No, Jesus Christ
was sacrificed for the world's sins by a pagan Roman governor's pagan
Roman military garrison.

And the Temple, the one that existed in Jerusalem in Christ's day, wasn't
built under the auspices of a Jewish holy man, nor of a Christian holy man;
but rather, a heathen pagan named Cyrus, king of Persia (Ez 1:1-4). That
same Temple was later remodeled and beautified not by a Jewish holy man,
nor by a Christian holy man, but by a bloody heathen named Herod The
Great, the very same Herod who ordered the wholesale slaughter of all the
little Jewish boys two-years old and under (Matt 2:16). Herod's Temple was
labeled by Jesus as "my Father's house" (John 2:16) and was the very one
he zealously purged of merchants and their wares.

Let that be a lesson: God oftentimes uses means that the world of men
consider inappropriate. After all, it was a promiscuous slut who helped
Joshua's scouts escape detection in Jericho. You know what became of her?
Well; after the campaign, she married a Jewish guy named Salmon, and of
them came Boaz, who married Ruth, which led to David, and eventually to
the holiest human being this planet has ever hosted: Jesus Christ, Son of
God, Son of Man. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And oh! My favorite is the naughty lady by the well of Samaria who was
married five times and shacking up with a guy when she and Jesus met. It
was to her that he revealed the nature of the "water" of John 3:5. To this
good day, educated Xian theologians professing to be Christ's followers still
squabble over the precise nature and purpose of that water; while she got it
straight from the horse's mouth.

Ironically, most Catholics are far more influenced in their religious thinking
by the Roman Catechism than by the 27 manuscripts Constantine's
committee chose for a New Testament. When the average Catholic is
introduced to New Testament Christianity for the first time, very often they
don't recognize it as New Testament Christianity; and readily dismiss it as
Protestant heresy because the New Testament clearly does not harmonize
with Rome's Catechism; and in point of fact, the Catechism all too often
actually contradicts the Bible; in addition to seriously embellishing it; making
Christianity more strict, and more cumbersome, than it really is; just as
Judaism's traditions did in Christ's day.

Below is a book I highly recommend to anybody curious about the origin of
the Bible. It's a small book, approximately 5½ x 8½ of 224 pages counting
the index and the notes. The font is roughly Courier New size 11 which is
large enough to be easily read by most folks.

How We Got The Bible
By Neil R. Lightfoot
ISBN-10: 1-56731-722-7
ISBN-13: 978-1-56731-722-0

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Ben Masada
November 13th, 2015, 12:55 PM
True that no one could at that time but it would mean something to try.

Cruciform
November 13th, 2015, 03:12 PM
I meant what sources do you trust for the reported crimes for example, the killing of an estimated 50 million "heretics".
Medieval history, for one, specifically the established fact that your supposed "50 million" far exceeds the entire population of Europe in the Middle Ages! Try again. :doh:

Cruciform
November 13th, 2015, 03:56 PM
It is totally false to say there would be no Bible but for the Catholic Church.
Addressed briefly here (http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20the%20Bible.htm) and here (https://discovercatholic.wordpress.com/11-2/where-did-we-get-the-bible/). In addition, consider this:



The Catholic Church gave Christians the Bible~

The first official list of books contained in what is the Bible was done at the Council of Hippo in 393 and then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. However, the Council of Trent in 1556 was the first time the Church infallibly defined these books as ‘inspired’ because it was questioned by Reformers. We have to admit, the apostles did not walk around with nice leather bound Bibles in their hand. There are many parts of the Bible that are oral tradition which was written down because when early believers attended the Synagogue or church, the scripture was read. They did not have their own copy with their name engraved on the front. Oral tradition was the norm of practice long before writing and reading was a part of life. The Jews followed the Old Testament before Jesus was born and Jesus is pictured in Scripture reading from the Old Testament in the Synagogue. There were multiple writings from this time but it was only after the list of books determined to be the ‘inspired Word of God’ by the Catholic Church first with the Council of Hippo in 393 that the world had what is called “The Bible”. The Bible remained the original 73 books determined by the Catholic Church until the Reformation, when Martin Luther threw out 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology…the same Old Testament adhered to by the Jews. He threw these 6 books out in the 16th Century. Luther also attempted to throw out New Testament books James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. In referring to James, he said he wanted to ‘throw Jimmy into the fire’ and the book of James was ‘an epistle of straw’ with no usefulness. After Pope Damasus I approved the 27 New Testament Books however in 382 AD, Luther agreed with the Pope and accepted the New Testament books but denied the Old Testament books …which remained out of his Bible. Non-Catholics will accept the Biblical books which are contained in the Protestant Bible but do not acknowledge they are accepting and trusting the authority of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was the one who proclaimed the entire list, as a whole, as ‘inspired’. The letters within the Bible are not the only letters and materials written by the Apostles so, as a result, those contained within the Bible had to be declared ‘inspired’ and it was the Catholic Church which did that duty.

http://www.catholic365.com/article/1723/5-reasons-the-catholic-church-is-the-true-church.html


For more info, see the following detailed source:



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xxzoKfGoL._AC_UL320_SR212,320_.jpg

Henry G. Graham, WHERE WE GOT THE BIBLE: Our Debt to the Catholic Church (Catholic Answers Press, 1997) (http://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Got-Bible-Catholic/dp/1888992042/ref=sr_1_2_twi_pap_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447451553&sr=1-2&keywords=where+we+got+the+bible+graham)


Read the entire book HERE (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

WeberHome
November 14th, 2015, 01:10 PM
-
Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church
dogma; especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who
disavows a revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief
or doctrine; viz: a nonconformist.

There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who
would never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are
anyway. The New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret
ee-kos') which means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church
who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, disputes, and
disharmony.

In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the
same church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same
religion that you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic
would be a professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and
attempts to persuade other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues
like abortion, female priests, and LGBT marriage.

Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.

†. Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself.

Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a
religious faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an
apostate is a defector whereas an heretic is a dissenter.

Q: Why can't I oppose Rome's stance on some things? Surely you don't
suggest that makes me a bad Catholic. I'm just being democratic; after all:
dissent is a human right.

A: The USA is a democracy consisting of a representative form of
government. Christ's church is a theocracy consisting of a monarchal form of
government; viz: his church is not a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people; but rather; it's a government of Christ, by Christ,
and for Christ-- a monarch who expects nothing less than 110% loyalty from
his subjects; which, relative to John and Jane Doe pew warmer, implies
submission to Rome.

†. Matt 16:19 . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Those keys were not given to John and Jane Doe; they were given to the
hierarchy; therefore, Catholics who dissent with Rome are actually rebelling
against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's a domino effect
all the way to the top.

†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

Dissention within Christ's church isn't democratic; no, dissention within the
Church is all the same as pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping
Shiva and Vishnu.

†. 1Sam 15:23 . . For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and
insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.

Several years ago, on Good Morning America, a Monsignor was asked by
David Hartman and Joan Lunden about Catholic dissidents, and he replied:
They've left the Church; and don't know it.

†. Matt 12:30 . . He that is not with me is against me

One of the New Testament's Greek words for "lord" is despotes (des-pot'
ace) which indicates absolute rule; viz: despotism. That word is applied to
Christ in more than one location in the New Testament. Despots typically
have little patience with dissenters.

According to the May 2, 2005 issue of Newsweek, a Gallup pole taken during
April 2005, on "difficult moral questions" showed that 74% of USA Catholics
would follow their own conscience rather than the authority of Rome. Just
20% said they would follow Rome. Apparently 6% were undecided.

Look; let me give that 74% a word of advice (and also that 6% who're
undecided); and this coming from a 71 year-old ex Catholic who was faithful
to Rome for the first 24+ years of his life. If you can't give your whole
hearted support to those whom you profess to believe hold the keys of the
kingdom; then it's time to bow out. It would be far better for all concerned,
yourself included, to defect and to self-excommunicate rather than to hang
around causing division and attempting to reform a religion that you find
impossible to support as-is.

Dissenting Catholics are not true Catholics at all; no, not in any sense of the
word. They're hybrids; actually Protestant Catholics, who have, in spirit,
already left the Church but just can't bring yourselves to step out the door
and make it final.

†. Rev 3:15-16 . . I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I
would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither
hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

aikido7
November 14th, 2015, 01:47 PM
...someone in your very own church
who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, disputes, and
disharmony.

That “someone” in our churches today is Jesus of Nazareth.

Christians are uncomfortable with the teachings OF Jesus. They would much rather declare him as “Son of God,” “born of a virgin,” “Messiah,” “Savior,” etc. rather than wrestle with his parables and his ethical teachings.

Unless Christianity can stop worshiping Christ and start following Jesus, the faith that we love will vanish and shrink.

Cruciform
November 15th, 2015, 02:18 PM
>BUMP<

everready
November 16th, 2015, 12:07 AM
Addressed briefly here (http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20the%20Bible.htm) and here (https://discovercatholic.wordpress.com/11-2/where-did-we-get-the-bible/). In addition, consider this:



The Catholic Church gave Christians the Bible~

The first official list of books contained in what is the Bible was done at the Council of Hippo in 393 and then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. However, the Council of Trent in 1556 was the first time the Church infallibly defined these books as ‘inspired’ because it was questioned by Reformers. We have to admit, the apostles did not walk around with nice leather bound Bibles in their hand. There are many parts of the Bible that are oral tradition which was written down because when early believers attended the Synagogue or church, the scripture was read. They did not have their own copy with their name engraved on the front. Oral tradition was the norm of practice long before writing and reading was a part of life. The Jews followed the Old Testament before Jesus was born and Jesus is pictured in Scripture reading from the Old Testament in the Synagogue. There were multiple writings from this time but it was only after the list of books determined to be the ‘inspired Word of God’ by the Catholic Church first with the Council of Hippo in 393 that the world had what is called “The Bible”. The Bible remained the original 73 books determined by the Catholic Church until the Reformation, when Martin Luther threw out 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology…the same Old Testament adhered to by the Jews. He threw these 6 books out in the 16th Century. Luther also attempted to throw out New Testament books James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. In referring to James, he said he wanted to ‘throw Jimmy into the fire’ and the book of James was ‘an epistle of straw’ with no usefulness. After Pope Damasus I approved the 27 New Testament Books however in 382 AD, Luther agreed with the Pope and accepted the New Testament books but denied the Old Testament books …which remained out of his Bible. Non-Catholics will accept the Biblical books which are contained in the Protestant Bible but do not acknowledge they are accepting and trusting the authority of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was the one who proclaimed the entire list, as a whole, as ‘inspired’. The letters within the Bible are not the only letters and materials written by the Apostles so, as a result, those contained within the Bible had to be declared ‘inspired’ and it was the Catholic Church which did that duty.

http://www.catholic365.com/article/1723/5-reasons-the-catholic-church-is-the-true-church.html


For more info, see the following detailed source:



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xxzoKfGoL._AC_UL320_SR212,320_.jpg

Henry G. Graham, WHERE WE GOT THE BIBLE: Our Debt to the Catholic Church (Catholic Answers Press, 1997) (http://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Got-Bible-Catholic/dp/1888992042/ref=sr_1_2_twi_pap_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447451553&sr=1-2&keywords=where+we+got+the+bible+graham)


Read the entire book HERE (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Rome didn't give us Gods word.

Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?

Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.

Here is a short history of the Bible.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb_from_catholics.htm


everready

turbosixx
November 16th, 2015, 06:01 AM
good for you

all our bibles are man made

That's not how I understand it.

Gal. 1:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

turbosixx
November 16th, 2015, 06:03 AM
It's clear that you simply have no idea what you're talking about

Funny, that's what I think of you.

turbosixx
November 16th, 2015, 06:07 AM
Medieval history, for one, specifically the established fact that your supposed "50 million" far exceeds the entire population of Europe in the Middle Ages! Try again. :doh:

We're talking 600 years. What number is agreeable? 1 Million? 10,000? 1,000?

Cruciform
November 16th, 2015, 05:11 PM
Rome didn't give us Gods word.
Already categorically refuted in the very post to which you're replying.


Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written? Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.
Your assumption that the Bible somehow descended from the heavens fully-formed---without the secondary causality of human agency---is noted. :darwinsm:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
November 16th, 2015, 05:17 PM
Funny, that's what I think of you.
Really. Did I factually misrepresent your recently-invented, man-made Protestant sect the way that you misrepresented the Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)?

turbosixx
November 16th, 2015, 05:39 PM
your recently-invented, man-made Protestant sect

This is where you are wrong.

Cruciform
November 16th, 2015, 05:41 PM
We're talking 600 years. What number is agreeable? 1 Million? 10,000? 1,000?
Addressed here (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/08/50-68-million-killed-in-the-inquisition.html).

Cruciform
November 16th, 2015, 05:42 PM
This is where you are wrong.
Post your proof.

turbosixx
November 16th, 2015, 05:50 PM
Post your proof.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved

After these people heard the gospel.

Acts 2:....."Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.........41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

When one hears the gospel, believes and is baptized they are added to the body of Christ which was established at his D,B & R. Not recently invented. No rcc needed.

Cruciform
November 16th, 2015, 06:37 PM
Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.
Who is the "them" to whom Jesus is speaking? It is specifically the apostles, the original Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). It is therefore that one historic Church---and not thousands of man-made sects some fifteen-hundred years later---which has been called to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments.


Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "[U]Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit... 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
And to what were they "added," specifically? To Christ's one historic Church led and infallibly taught by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6), that is, the Magisterium. Likewise with Christ's one historic Church---the Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---today.


When one hears the gospel, believes and is baptized they are added to the body of Christ...
According to the New Testament, to be baptized into Christ's Church is likewise to be initiated into Christ's Body. If you're not related to the Church, you have no place in the Body either.


Not recently invented.
The Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) is not recently-invented---though your favored man-made non-Catholic sect certainly is.


No CC needed.
Your claim that that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), is "not needed" is noted. :doh:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

WeberHome
November 16th, 2015, 10:35 PM
-
†. Rom 14:14-15 . . I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing
is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.

Although that passage primarily regards foods, it lays down an important
principle; viz: Be it unto you according to your conscience (cf. Rom 2:12
15).

Therefore, Rome's followers shall be judged according to their religion of
choice; ergo: they shall be punished for their every failing to comply with all
that Rome teaches and stands for-- all ten of the Ten Commandments, all of
its Traditions; every Bull, every Encyclical, every Vatican Council, and every
thing in the Catechism from first to last; along with everything in the
Sermon On The Mount and in the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, John, and
Jude. And God rewards neither effort nor good intentions; He only rewards
success.

†. Rom 2:5-11 . . For there is going to come a day of judgment when God,
the just judge of all the world, will judge all people according to what they
have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is
good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. But
he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who
refuse to obey the truth and practice evil deeds.

. . .There will be trouble and calamity for everyone who keeps on sinning--
for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. But there will be glory and honor
and peace from God for all who do good-- for the Jew first and also for the
Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

The difficulty with obtaining glory, honor, and immortality via performance is
that God demands persistence (Rom 2:7) viz: doing what's good not just
some of the time, nor even most of the time, but all the time. I'd venture to
say that none in Rome have succeeded in doing good all the time; not even
the Pope; so how can Rome reasonably expect it's followers to succeed with
persistence? In point of fact, any Catholic, including the Pope, who thinks
they have what it takes to be persistent at doing good is in very big trouble.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon16: If anyone says that he will
for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of
perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special
revelation, let him be anathema.

Webster's defines "anathema" as a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by
ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

At the very least, Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon16
denounces those among Rome's followers brazen enough to think they have
what it takes to be persistent at even trying to do good, let alone
succeeding; and rightly so seeing as how no doubt Rome itself has yet to
succeed in consistently exemplifying even so much as the Beatitudes or the
Sermon On The Mount; let alone the rest of the New Testament. Ergo:
seeking after glory and honor and immortality via Roman Catholicism is an
iffy proposition at best.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

everready
November 16th, 2015, 11:56 PM
Already categorically refuted in the very post to which you're replying.


Your assumption that the Bible somehow descended from the heavens fully-formed---without the secondary causality of human agency---is noted. :darwinsm:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You think its funny do you, no it wasn't fully formed, men like John Wycliffe gave us the bible, but Rome didn't care much for it:

The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible.

With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe.

The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html

Why won't you listen to the Lord?

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


everready

Cruciform
November 17th, 2015, 12:13 AM
You think its funny do you, no it wasn't fully formed, men like John Wycliffe gave us the bible, but Rome didn't care much for it:
On Wycliffe, see this (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER XII).

On anti-Catholic claims about the Catholic Church and the Bible, see this (http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/ForbidBibleReading.pdf), this (http://themichigancatholic.com/2014/09/has-the-church-historically-been-an-enemy-of-the-bible/), this (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.it/2014/08/did-catholic-church-try-to-suppress.html), and this (http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

everready
November 17th, 2015, 01:26 AM
On Wycliffe, see this (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER XII).

On anti-Catholic claims about the Catholic Church and the Bible, see this (http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/ForbidBibleReading.pdf), this (http://themichigancatholic.com/2014/09/has-the-church-historically-been-an-enemy-of-the-bible/), this (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.it/2014/08/did-catholic-church-try-to-suppress.html), and this (http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The Inquisitors got him, by the way why did John Paul II reopen the Office Of The Inquisitions?

Pope John Paul II Revives Inquisition
By Kathleen R. Hayes

Feb 1991, NRI Trumpet Page 3

The thought of a revived Holy Office of the Inquisition would pacify some and offend others. Nevertheless, the "Holy Office" still exists. Only it's name has been changed. Pope John Paul II has been instrumental in its revival. One may argue that this Ratzinger run agency is merely an attempt by the Catholic Church to root out communism or backslidden priests and their practices.

However, with John Paul II's objective to implement "God's mandate" by creating a global church-state which will administer from traditional Roman Catholic theology, is enough cause for alarm. Malachi Martin has already stated in his book, "The Keys of this Blood," that the pope will not tolerate any belief systems that oppose his, not on a civil or church level.

In John Paul II the world will behold a tyrant who will coldly execute direct orders against those whom he deems are heretics or immoral. Moreover, like his papal predecessors, John Paul II will carry out his "Godly mandate" in the name of Christ, or perhaps Mary. May God help us all.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/inquisition.htm

She's right and God will help those that are in Christ.


everready

turbosixx
November 17th, 2015, 05:51 AM
Who is the "them" to whom Jesus is speaking? It is specifically the apostles, the original Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). It is therefore that one historic Church---and not thousands of man-made sects some fifteen-hundred years later---which has been called to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments.


And to what were they "added," specifically? To Christ's one historic Church led and infallibly taught by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6), that is, the Magisterium. Likewise with Christ's one historic Church---the Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---today.


According to the New Testament, to be baptized into Christ's Church is likewise to be initiated into Christ's Body. If you're not related to the Church, you have no place in the Body either.


The Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) is not recently-invented---though your favored man-made non-Catholic sect certainly is.


Your claim that that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), is "not needed" is noted. :doh:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

We're getting no where because we us different things for our authority. I'll be praying for you.

Cruciform
November 17th, 2015, 02:48 PM
...why did John Paul II reopen the Office Of The Inquisitions?
In order to clarify Catholic teaching by distinguishing true doctrine from that which is false.

Cruciform
November 17th, 2015, 02:53 PM
We're getting no where because we us different things for our authority.
Indeed. And your inability to offer any valid counter-response to Post #210 above is proof that your authority---that is, your personal interpretations (opinions) of the Bible---is both unbiblical and unChristian.


I'll be praying for you.
Likewise.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

aikido7
November 17th, 2015, 04:08 PM
It has been said America is now an empire. It stretches everywhere around the globe and uses violence as well as diplomacy.

The Roman Empire was violent as well and in a few times was diplomatic when it served them well.

When the little band of believers merged into the Holy Roman Empire in 325 AD (C.E.) their world and faith profoundly changed.

Among Christians, it was once an understanding that no man would join the empire’s armies. But after the Roman Emperor Constantine “converted” it soon became mandatory for able bodied Christians to join the military.

Many of the writings in Paul’s gospel show an attempt to separate the new faith from the goings and comings of the empire that surrounded him. But the “wall of separation” was finally breached.

In my opinion, we largely have a religion that Jesus would have rejected,
My only faith is to hold to Jesus and see him as the “norm” of the Bible.
I try to offer feedback both here and in my Bible study to start seeing Christianity in the context of a complex global world.

WeberHome
November 18th, 2015, 10:18 PM
-
A false premise like "Rome Has Spoken" renders Rome's followers vulnerable
to scotoma; which, if you've seen The Davinci Code, you know is a
subconsciously induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's
propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated,
preconceived notions.

Scotoma is a serious condition. It causes people to disregard what Christ has
spoken in favor of what Rome has spoken. Curiously, they don't deliberately
disregard what Christ has spoken in favor of what Rome has spoken; they
actually do so without even thinking about it because scotoma is a mental
weakness rather then a weakness of the will.

For example: note the grammatical tense of Christ's statement below. It's in
the present tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly
imbibe his blood, and correctly ingest his flesh, obtain eternal life right now,
rather than later in the next life after they pass on.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

The average pew warmer's mind will miss the grammatical tense of Christ's
statement; and without even thinking push the possession of eternal life into
the future because the pew warmer has had it drilled into their head ever
since catechism that the afterlife is where people obtain eternal life; and
there is no use in debating this issue with them because their belief is a
deep-seated, preconceived notion that will resist any and all reasoning to the
contrary no matter how well presented.

Here's another example:

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

According to Christ's statement, the one possessing eternal life will never be
condemned for their sins; which means they are guaranteed to persevere to
the end. Ironically, the Church severely disciplines people who believe such
things.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he
will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift
of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a
special revelation, let him be anathema.

I sincerely believe that Christ's statements qualify as special revelations.
Rome doesn't agree? Well all I can say is: shame on Rome.

†. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's
Spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

†. John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who
does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on
him.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

WeberHome
November 20th, 2015, 09:41 AM
-
In essence, the beads of a rosary are little more than a string of rote prayers
rather than the candor commanded by Heb 4:16. So then rosaries are in
essence a string of mantras repeated over and over and over again, which is
a clear violation of not only Heb 4:16, but also Christ's God-given
instructions.

†. Matt 6:7-9 . . In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that
they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your
Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

I appeal not only to your reason, but also to your sensibilities. Suppose the
door bell rang one day and when you opened up-- yikes! --it was God
himself in person! Would you welcome God into your home by reading from
a missal and/or chanting a rosary; or would you greet Him as you do real
visitors? Well, the Bible's God is real; so treat Him with the courtesy and
respect that His intelligence deserves if you expect Him to reciprocate and
treat you with courtesy and respect in return.

Do you speak to your friends, your associates, your spouse, your domestic
partner, your significant other, your doctor, your dentist, supermarket
cashiers, or the cops by repeating the same thing over and over again? Of
course not. They would write you off as one in desperate need of therapy if
you did. Then why would anyone think it makes sense to speak to God by
saying the same thing over and over again?

Don't you think He looks upon rote chanters as mental cases when they do
that? Of course He does; who wouldn't? How would you like it if everybody
spoke to you like that? Well, He doesn't like it either. God is far more
intelligent than anybody you could possibly name and rote chanters are
treating Him like a totem pole. The Bible's God is a king who deserves far
more respect than a US President yet people are speaking to Him like a tape
recorder rather than the ultimate Sovereign that He is.

Don't ever treat Christ's father like some sort of sounding board. Not even
Forrest Gump would appreciate being spoken to in rote, and God's IQ is way
higher than Forrest's; so how do you suppose He feels about being
addressed in rote. The Bible's God is a sentient, sensible person; and we all
need to show some respect for His intelligence. I guarantee He will be most
grateful for your regard.

A very serious flaw with rosaries is the number of mantras devoted, not to
God, but to a woman-- Jesus' mom --which is in direct opposition to the
spirit of God's son, and the spirit of adoption.

†. Rom 8:15-17 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Ben Masada
November 20th, 2015, 01:29 PM
It has been said America is now an empire. It stretches everywhere around the globe and uses violence as well as diplomacy.

The Roman Empire was violent as well and in a few times was diplomatic when it served them well.

When the little band of believers merged into the Holy Roman Empire in 325 AD (C.E.) their world and faith profoundly changed.

Among Christians, it was once an understanding that no man would join the empire’s armies. But after the Roman Emperor Constantine “converted” it soon became mandatory for able bodied Christians to join the military.

Many of the writings in Paul’s gospel show an attempt to separate the new faith from the goings and comings of the empire that surrounded him. But the “wall of separation” was finally breached.

In my opinion, we largely have a religion that Jesus would have rejected,
My only faith is to hold to Jesus and see him as the “norm” of the Bible.
I try to offer feedback both here and in my Bible study to start seeing Christianity in the context of a complex global world.

Yes, Aikido, you say above that your only faith is to hold unto Jesus and see him as the "norm" of the Bible but, considering that he was a Jew whose Faith was Judaism, I see no other way to hold unto him but by becoming one as he was. Has this bird ever rested its feet in your mind?

Cruciform
November 21st, 2015, 12:11 PM
In essence, the beads of a rosary are little more than a string of rote prayers...
Answered here (http://shamelesspopery.com/does-the-bible-condemn-repetitive-prayer/) and here (http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/therosary.pdf).

WeberHome
November 22nd, 2015, 09:33 AM
-
Rome's poster child, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. Mother Teresa) is a
terrible disappointment. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her
public image bore no resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner
being. Below are some quotes taken from her own private letters; and
excerpts of her statements from other sources. You be the judge: role model
or role player, believer or make-believer?

"Only pray that I keep up this joy exteriorly. I deceive people with this
weapon-- even my Sisters."

"I am grateful to for all the kindness & help you give to my Sisters and me.
My prayer, though miserably dry & frozen, is often offered for you & your
work for souls."

"When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting
emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my
very soul. How painful is this unknown pain-- I have no faith."

"I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness &
emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

"Now Father-- since 49 or 50 this terrible sense of loss-- this untold
darkness-- this loneliness, this continual longing for God-- which gives me
pain deep down in my heart-- Darkness is such that I really do not see
neither with my mind nor with my reason-- the place of God in my soul is
blank-- There is no God in me-- when the pain of longing is so great-- I just
long & long for God-- and then it is that I feel-- He does not want me-- He is
not there-- God does not want me-- Sometimes-- I just hear my own heart
cry out-- "My God" and nothing else comes-- the torture and pain I can't
explain"

"My smile is a great cloak that hides a multitude of pains."

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment
with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I
feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not
really exist."

"If there be God . . please forgive me."

"Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim
or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how
to worship him" (Mother Teresa Touched Other Faiths, Associated Press,
9/7/97).

"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of
Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's
presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for
this better men-- simply better --we will be satisfied. It matters to the
individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes
that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes
into their life-- his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no
doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation."

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times tells the story of Mother Teresa
sheltering an old Hindu priest. "She nursed him with her own hands and
helped him to die reconciled with his own gods."

Teresa was virtually 100% estranged from both God and Christ during the
whole five decades of her work in India. She experienced a darkness of the
soul unparalleled among Catholic mystics. Some say this was in preparation
for her eventual sainthood. But Paul the apostle was a "saint" and he never
once experienced Teresa's depth of abandonment. In point of fact, he never
experienced any abandonment whatsoever; nor should any other of Christ's
followers.

†. John 14:15-18 . .If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray
the Father, and He will give you another Counselor, that He may abide with
you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it
neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you
and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

†. John 14:23 . .If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father
will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

†. John 15:10 . .If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love,
just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

†. Phlp 4:5-7 . .The Lord is nearby. Do not be anxious about anything, but in
everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your concerns
to God. And the peace of God, which is beyond the intellect, will guard your
hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear;
but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Abba!
Father! The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

The Spirit's silence in Teresa's heart, and her utter lack of peace, were
indicative of something very gone-wrong in her association with Christ.

†. 1John 1:5-7 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare
to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have
fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the
truth.

Father Neuner, one of Teresa's spiritual advisors commented: "Why had God
abandoned her totally? She had to lead the Sisters, initiate them into the
love of God and into a life of prayer, which had been wiped out in her own
life as she lived in total emptiness. Had she become a shameful hypocrite
who spoke to others about the divine mysteries which had totally vanished
from her own heart?"

All evidence points to the obvious conclusion that Teresa was the most
convincing Christian pretense the twentieth century ever produced; and if
she was a charlatan, who else is playing church inside the Church?

†. Matt 7:22-23 . .Many will say to me in that day; Lord, Master, have we
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them; I
never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Christ's statement doesn't target Atheists, nor Buddhists, nor Hindus, nor
Muslims. No, it targets people professing to have prophesied in "thy name",
and to have exorcised demons in "thy name", and to have done may
wonderful works in "thy name"; viz: it targets Christians-- and not just your
average rank and file pew warmers either, no, but rather, it targets the
cream of the crop; the celebrities of the Christian world; renowned for their
accomplishments, their piety, their perseverance, their love, and their
dedication.

It is to many of those very kinds of Christians that Christ will say: I never
knew you. Why? Because though those luminaries glistered, they were never
in league with Christ though they certainly appeared to be; and that is really
scary because it make one wonder who to trust.

Recommended Reading:

Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light
The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta"
Edited with commentary by Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C.
ISBN 978-0-385-52037-9

NOTE: The book is a collection of Teresa's letters written privately to
spiritual counselors; published with hierarchy approval by her long-time
friend Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk M.C.; director of the Mother Teresa Center,
and a Postulator in favor of her canonization.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

everready
November 22nd, 2015, 01:19 PM
-
Rome's poster child, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. Mother Teresa) is a
terrible disappointment. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her
public image bore no resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner
being. Below are some quotes taken from her own private letters; and
excerpts of her statements from other sources. You be the judge: role model
or role player, believer or make-believer?

"Only pray that I keep up this joy exteriorly. I deceive people with this
weapon-- even my Sisters."

"I am grateful to for all the kindness & help you give to my Sisters and me.
My prayer, though miserably dry & frozen, is often offered for you & your
work for souls."

"When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting
emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my
very soul. How painful is this unknown pain-- I have no faith."

"I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness &
emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

"Now Father-- since 49 or 50 this terrible sense of loss-- this untold
darkness-- this loneliness, this continual longing for God-- which gives me
pain deep down in my heart-- Darkness is such that I really do not see
neither with my mind nor with my reason-- the place of God in my soul is
blank-- There is no God in me-- when the pain of longing is so great-- I just
long & long for God-- and then it is that I feel-- He does not want me-- He is
not there-- God does not want me-- Sometimes-- I just hear my own heart
cry out-- "My God" and nothing else comes-- the torture and pain I can't
explain"

"My smile is a great cloak that hides a multitude of pains."

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment
with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I
feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not
really exist."

"If there be God . . please forgive me."

"Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim
or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how
to worship him" (Mother Teresa Touched Other Faiths, Associated Press,
9/7/97).

"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of
Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's
presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for
this better men-- simply better --we will be satisfied. It matters to the
individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes
that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes
into their life-- his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no
doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation."

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times tells the story of Mother Teresa
sheltering an old Hindu priest. "She nursed him with her own hands and
helped him to die reconciled with his own gods."

Teresa was virtually 100% estranged from both God and Christ during the
whole five decades of her work in India. She experienced a darkness of the
soul unparalleled among Catholic mystics. Some say this was in preparation
for her eventual sainthood. But Paul the apostle was a "saint" and he never
once experienced Teresa's depth of abandonment. In point of fact, he never
experienced any abandonment whatsoever; nor should any other of Christ's
followers.

†. John 14:15-18 . .If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray
the Father, and He will give you another Counselor, that He may abide with
you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it
neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you
and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

†. John 14:23 . .If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father
will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

†. John 15:10 . .If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love,
just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

†. Phlp 4:5-7 . .The Lord is nearby. Do not be anxious about anything, but in
everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your concerns
to God. And the peace of God, which is beyond the intellect, will guard your
hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear;
but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Abba!
Father! The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

The Spirit's silence in Teresa's heart, and her utter lack of peace, were
indicative of something very gone-wrong in her association with Christ.

†. 1John 1:5-7 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare
to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have
fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the
truth.

Father Neuner, one of Teresa's spiritual advisors commented: "Why had God
abandoned her totally? She had to lead the Sisters, initiate them into the
love of God and into a life of prayer, which had been wiped out in her own
life as she lived in total emptiness. Had she become a shameful hypocrite
who spoke to others about the divine mysteries which had totally vanished
from her own heart?"

All evidence points to the obvious conclusion that Teresa was the most
convincing Christian pretense the twentieth century ever produced; and if
she was a charlatan, who else is playing church inside the Church?

†. Matt 7:22-23 . .Many will say to me in that day; Lord, Master, have we
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them; I
never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Christ's statement doesn't target Atheists, nor Buddhists, nor Hindus, nor
Muslims. No, it targets people professing to have prophesied in "thy name",
and to have exorcised demons in "thy name", and to have done may
wonderful works in "thy name"; viz: it targets Christians-- and not just your
average rank and file pew warmers either, no, but rather, it targets the
cream of the crop; the celebrities of the Christian world; renowned for their
accomplishments, their piety, their perseverance, their love, and their
dedication.

It is to many of those very kinds of Christians that Christ will say: I never
knew you. Why? Because though those luminaries glistered, they were never
in league with Christ though they certainly appeared to be; and that is really
scary because it make one wonder who to trust.

Recommended Reading:

Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light
The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta"
Edited with commentary by Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C.
ISBN 978-0-385-52037-9

NOTE: The book is a collection of Teresa's letters written privately to
spiritual counselors; published with hierarchy approval by her long-time
friend Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk M.C.; director of the Mother Teresa Center,
and a Postulator in favor of her canonization.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

i think the best example of this from scripture is Judas:

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Even the other disciples thought he was the real article.


everready

WeberHome
November 27th, 2015, 02:47 PM
-
†. Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.

The verse above was taken from the Douay Rheims. Modern versions of the
Bible have changed the wording just a bit to more accurately reflect what
Jesus actually said, because hell (as we usually understand hell) is incorrect
since the Greek text doesn't use the word geena; instead, it uses haides,
which is just simply the afterlife; so that the verse should read like this:

†. Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will
not overcome it.

Some versions substitute the word "powers" for gates, but the Greek word is
pule (poo'-lay); which literally does mean a gate, viz: the leaf or wing of a
folding entrance. So then, the netherworld is depicted as a walled
community; the entrance to and/or exit from is controlled by gates the likes
of those in the walls of the old city of Jerusalem, which had twelve gates.
Gates then, are designed to either keep people in or to keep people out.
apparently the purpose of the netherworld's gates is to keep people in.

According to Jonah, the netherworld's gates are like the bars of a prison.
(Jonah 2:6)

Christ testified that his church could not be held by the bars of the
netherworld. He didn't say some of his church, nor most of his church.
Seeing as how he didn't qualify his statement, I think it's pretty safe to
assume Christ meant his entire church; from the lowliest pew warmer to the
top of the hierarchy.

Roman Catholicism insists that it alone is Christ's church. So then, if Rome's
claim is true, then the gates of the netherworld should be powerless to
permanently confine even one Catholic. In other words: no Catholic should
be in danger of going to hell.

†. John 6:39-40 . .This is the will of Him who sent me: that I shall lose none
of all that He has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my
Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall
have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

But the fact of the matter is: Rome cannot guarantee its followers 100%
safety from the wrath of God; but instead, fully expects to lose a number of
its people to hell; and that should not be if Roman Catholicism is Christ's
true church; especially seeing as how Christ is the custodian of the keys to
the netherworld's gates.

†. Rev 1:18 . . I hold the keys of death and the afterlife.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who heed my message, and believe in
God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their
sins, but they have already transferred from death into life.

†. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep heed my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

How many Roman Catholics can honestly say: I have eternal life, I have
passed from death into life, I will never be condemned for my sins, and I will
never perish. The truth is: they better not make such a claim because the
Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16 slams all such with
anathema for professing that kind of confidence.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Crucible
November 28th, 2015, 02:49 AM
Rome is, historically, our classical society. The Western world ultimately came from that part of the world as far as culture and technology. It's too bad the Church, like Adam and Eve, fell from it's grace and had to be reformed..
#Protestantism

chrysostom
November 28th, 2015, 07:17 AM
the church is still standing

Cruciform
November 28th, 2015, 03:50 PM
Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Decisively addressed here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).

Right Divider
November 28th, 2015, 03:56 PM
When are they?
All the time.

Cruciform
November 28th, 2015, 04:28 PM
It's too bad the Church, like Adam and Eve, fell from it's grace and had to be reformed... #Protestantism
Your tacit claim that Jesus Christ lied in Matthew 16:18 is noted.

See also this (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/albertlittle/when-did-the-early-church-lose-its-way/).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Bright Raven
November 28th, 2015, 05:59 PM
Your tacit claim that Jesus Christ lied in Matthew 16:18 is noted.

See also this (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/albertlittle/when-did-the-early-church-lose-its-way/).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Peter is not the rock upon which the Church is built, Christ is. Peter says this himself;

1 Peter 2:6-7 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

Cruciform
November 28th, 2015, 06:24 PM
Peter is not the rock upon which the Church is built, Christ is.
Already definitively answered in Post #228 above.

brewmama
November 28th, 2015, 08:16 PM
Peter is not the rock upon which the Church is built, Christ is. Peter says this himself;

1 Peter 2:6-7 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

No one denies that Christ is the cornerstone. Why do you deny Jesus' own words about Peter though?

WeberHome
November 28th, 2015, 11:27 PM
-

Why do you deny Jesus' own words about Peter?

It seems to me that the one person who would know best about what Christ
said as per Matt 16:18 is Peter. As I have yet to find anything in Peter's
writings even so much as suggesting that he himself is "this rock" upon
which Christ is building his church, then I really think Rome's position should
be regarded as an unproven theory.

BTW: Christ wasn't talking about a stone at Matt 16:18, nor was he talking
about a rock; he was talking about bedrock. Peter isn't bedrock, he's just a
chunk of rock. (John 1:42)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

dialm
November 29th, 2015, 05:10 AM
Standing up to Rome?

That depends

If the Protestants send them then it would be wise to submit.

WeberHome
November 29th, 2015, 07:48 AM
-
†. 1Pet 3:15 . . Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks
you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

That passage should probably always accompany this next one.

†. Rom 8:23-25 . .We ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit,
groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons: the redemption
of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no
hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we
do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in those passages is elpis (el
pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure)and to expect with
confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and
confidence.

Webster's definition of hope as a verb is very similar: 1) to desire with
expectation of obtainment, and 2) to expect with confidence and trust. Note
the elements of expectation, and confidence, and trust.

Webster's definition of hope as a noun is: 1) a desire accompanied by
expectation of, or belief in, fulfillment, and 2) expectation of fulfillment or
success. Note the elements of expectation, and belief.

NOTE: Some folk object to Webster's in a Bible study, but unless those of us
who speak English base our language upon a universal standard, we risk
ending up back at the Tower of Babel.

The plan of salvation includes not only rescue from the wrath of God, but
also rescue from despair and feelings of futility. In other words: unbelievers
do not expect to survive the demise of their bodies, nor do they expect to
get another body in the afterlife; let alone a better body-- one that's
superior in all respects to the body they have now. Believers expect to not
only survive the demise of their body; but also to get a better body-- one
that's superior in all respects to the one they have now.

When somebody has that kind of hope, it rescues them from despair and
feelings of futility. In other words: the unbeliever's current existence is
futile, but the believer's current existence is merely a stepping stone to
something better. Believers have something to look forward to while
unbelievers have nothing to look forward to. That's what it means to be
"saved by hope". In other words: saved from having nothing to look forward
to. (cf. 1Cor 15:51-54)

†. Rom 12:12 . . Rejoicing in hope.

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind
dreading the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they
do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

Does an adherent of Catholicism have elpis hope? I don't think so; and in
point of fact, Church dogma forbids having it.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he
will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift
of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a
special revelation, let him be anathema. (cf. CCC 1020)

Webster's defines "anathema" as: a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by
ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

Since Rome doesn't permit elpis hope, then it's de facto that Rome's
constituents can't possibly comply with Peter's command to give a reason for
having it.

The Bible says that elpis hope is a "calling"

†. Eph 4:5 . .you were called to one hope when you were called

Catholicism's hope is not Peter's elpis hope; but rather, a somewhat nervous
state of anxiety and wishful thinking that hovers within a hair's breadth of
bitter disappointment.

The Council aside; it only stands to reason, that any candidate for a better
body who is in the process of working out their own salvation with fear and
trembling as per Rome's interpretation of Phlp 2:12, cannot possibly have
elpis hope.

Think about it. If a candidate for salvation is still in the process of working
out their own salvation with fear and trembling, then it's obvious they do not
believe themselves to have a better body locked in yet; ergo: no
conscientious Catholic can honestly look forward to a better body with a
100% doubt-free expectation of obtaining it; viz: they do not yet have the
kind of hope about which Peter wrote in 1Pet 3:15, nor the kind of hope
about which Paul wrote in Eph 4:5; and if they claim otherwise, then they
merit the penalty of Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Interplanner
November 29th, 2015, 08:12 AM
The main item of the Council of Trent was that justification was infusa. That meant that it was confused with the process of personal transformation, which is a big mistake. Gratia imputa which the Reformation taught was saying that justification dealt with the debt of sin; imputation is a bookkeeping term, after all. Actually it is staggering how many teachers today dwell on personal transformation and think that they are talking about justification.

brewmama
November 29th, 2015, 03:17 PM
-


It seems to me that the one person who would know best about what Christ
said as per Matt 16:18 is Peter. As I have yet to find anything in Peter's
writings even so much as suggesting that he himself is "this rock" upon
which Christ is building his church, then I really think Rome's position should
be regarded as an unproven theory.

BTW: Christ wasn't talking about a stone at Matt 16:18, nor was he talking
about a rock; he was talking about bedrock. Peter isn't bedrock, he's just a
chunk of rock. (John 1:42)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

That's what happens when you limit yourself to Bible only, you ignore all of history and tradition, even apostolic tradition. Not everything was written down in the Bible, as even the Bible points out. Some things were universally known in all the churches, yet you throw it out.

Cruciform
November 29th, 2015, 03:30 PM
Christ wasn't talking about a stone at Matt 16:18, nor was he talking about a rock; he was talking about bedrock. Peter isn't bedrock, he's just a chunk of rock. (John 1:42)
Already definitively answered---and corrected---in Post #228 above.

WeberHome
November 29th, 2015, 04:03 PM
-
It's often alleged by people ignorant of RCC history that the Church has
always believed that "this rock" about which Christ spoke at Matt 16:18 is
Peter.

Rome’s rule for explaining the Scriptures and determining doctrine is the
Creed of Pius IV. This Creed binds Rome to explain the Scriptures only
according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. But watch this:

In the year 1870 when the Fathers gathered and the Pope declared his
infallibility, the Cardinals were not in agreement on Matt 16:18. They held
no less than five differing interpretations.

Seventeen insisted Peter is the rock.

Sixteen held that Christ is the rock.

Eight were emphatic that the whole apostolic college is the rock.

Forty-four said Peter’s faith is the rock.

The remainder looked upon the whole body of believers as the rock.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Cruciform
November 29th, 2015, 05:01 PM
It's often alleged by people ignorant of RCC history...
Now WH is going to present himself as a supposed "expert" on Catholic Church history...


...that the Church has always believed that "this rock" about which Christ spoke at Matt 16:18 is Peter.
As even a cursory reading of the Early Church Fathers makes clear (see Post #228 above).


Rome’s rule for explaining the Scriptures and determining doctrine is the Creed of Pius IV. This Creed binds Rome to explain the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
That is, of the early scholars and leaders of the Catholic Church during its first eight centuries or so.


In the year 1870 when the Fathers gathered and the Pope declared his infallibility, the Cardinals were not in agreement on Matt 16:18.
Sorry, but 19th-century Cardinals are not part of the Early Church Fathers. Try again.


They held no less than five differing interpretations.
Catholics acknowledge a few related meanings of Mt. 16:18, though none of them negates or denies the fact that Peter himself is the "Rock" upon which Christ would build his Church.


Everything in your post is addressed in detail in Post #228 above.


Also, if you're going to post this type of information, you need to include your source as well. Post the URL for the above content, please.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

WeberHome
November 30th, 2015, 07:52 AM
-
Neither the word purgatory, nor a specific teaching about a purgatory, is
actually in the Holy Bible; so Rome points to certain passages that, although
they don't actually prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of a
purgatory, they allude to (suggest the possibility of) a purgatory. For
example:

In 2Mcc 12:38-46 a Jewish military commander named Judas Maccabeus
made an attempt to atone for his dead soldiers' pagan amulets which he
believed is a crime against God for Jews to wear. So Judas passed the hat
among his surviving men and collected about 2,000 silver drachmas which
were sent to Jerusalem intended for a sacrifice to expiate his dead men's sin
so that it wouldn't jeopardize their resurrection.

Although Judas meant well; what he did was itself a violation of the very
Law that he sought to appease. There are no sacrifices stipulated in the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy for expiating the sins that people take with
them over to the afterlife.

The very Law he sought to appease makes it a crime to either amend,
embellish, add to, revise, edit, upgrade, update, or subtract from the
covenant.

†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.

†. Deut 5:32-33 . . Be careful, therefore, to do as the LORD, your God, has
commanded you, not turning aside to the right or to the left, but following
exactly the way prescribed for you by the LORD, your God,

†. Deut 26:16 . . This day the LORD, your God, commands you to observe
these statutes and decrees. Be careful, then, to observe them with all your
heart and with all your soul.

Therefore, had the priests at Jerusalem accepted Judas Maccabeus' 2,000
silver drachmas for the purpose he intended, they would have been cursed.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this
law!

The phrase "cursed be" is grammatically present tense; so that when Yhvh's
people beak any one of the laws stipulated in the covenant, they incur an
instant curse upon themselves-- no delay, and no waiting period.

Bottom line: What Judas Maccabeus did was just as pagan as the amulets
that his men were wearing when they died.

Q: How can you doubt the truth of 2Mcc 12:38-46? It’s in the Holy Bible!

A: Just because somebody's personal beliefs are recorded in the Bible does
not make their personal beliefs eo ipso truth. Judas believed it was possible
for living Jews to offer sacrifices for the sins of dead Jews. Is it? No;
absolutely not! Were it possible, then a procedure for that purpose would be
stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Atonements for the dead fall into the category of sins of presumption; viz:
unauthorized behavior.

If 2Mcc 12:38-46 teaches anything at all it’s that the Israel of Judas
Maccabeus’ day was spiritually decadent-- just as decadent as it was in the
days of the Judges when every man did that which was right in his own eyes
rather than Yhvh's eyes; and they were still at it even in Christ's day and
age.

†. Mark 7:6-9 . . And Jesus said to them: Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their
heart is far away from me. In futility do they worship me, teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you
hold to the tradition of men.

†. Mark 7:13 . . You invalidate the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Cruciform
December 1st, 2015, 02:46 PM
Neither the word purgatory, nor a specific teaching about a purgatory, is actually in the Holy Bible.
Try again (http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html). :yawn:

WeberHome
December 1st, 2015, 08:02 PM
-
One of the Church's earliest official proclamations regarding a Purgatory was
Pope Leo X's Bull of Exurge Domine. In the year 1520 he stated, along with
some other things, that death is the termination not of nature but of sin, and
this inability to sin makes [purgatorial souls] secure of final happiness; viz:
according to Leo X, the occupants of a Purgatory are unable to sin;
subsequently, they are sinless and will not commit new sins while
undergoing purgatorial discipline and purification.

It wasn't till Vatican 1, held 1869-1870AD, that a Church Council decreed
the infallibility of the Pope when, speaking as shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the
whole Church. Vatican 1's decree was enacted 350 years after Leo X's Bull.

The laws of God enacted ex post facto are not retroactive. This is easily
proven by Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17.

Therefore it would be presumptuous to accept Leo's Bull as ex cathedra; viz:
it should not be accepted by conscientious Catholics as the God's truth;
especially in light of the historical fact that Leo X's personal life, and also his
deplorable dealings in an official capacity, almost single-handedly totally
destroyed people's confidence in the papacy. Men like Leo X are not above
fabricating "truth" right out of thin air as a means to their own ends.

Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, wrote
truthfully: "In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her
Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of
paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their
misfortunes."

Von Reumont said; "Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that
faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating
powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men
could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church."

Regarding the concept of a zero-propensity to sin in a Purgatory: none of the
Church's Ecumenical Councils— beginning with Nicaea 1 in 325AD till Vatican
2 in 1962-65AD, a total of twenty-one Ecumenical Councils in all —have
taken in hand to write Leo's concept into the Catechism; yet it isn't
uncommon for professing Catholics to refer to Leo's Bull as the teachings of
the Church. I have a hunch there will come a day when the concept of
sinless purgatorians will be stricken from Catholicism just as Limbo already
has.

However, I'm sure you can see right off just how essential it would be for
souls in a Purgatory to be incapable of sinning, because if they weren't, then
Rome’s promise in CCC.1030, of an assured eternal salvation for
purgatorians, would be a tenuous guarantee indeed since each new sin
committed while interred in a Purgatory would add time to the penitent’s
original sentence; with the very real possibility of potentially snow-balling to
the point where they would never be released.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

Cruciform
December 1st, 2015, 09:21 PM
Already answered---and corrected---in Post #243 above.

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2015, 09:24 PM
-
Neither the word purgatory, nor a specific teaching about a purgatory, is
actually in the Holy Bible; so Rome points to certain passages that, although
they don't actually prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of a
purgatory, they allude to (suggest the possibility of) a purgatory. For
example:

In 2Mcc 12:38-46 a Jewish military commander named Judas Maccabeus
made an attempt to atone for his dead soldiers' pagan amulets which he
believed is a crime against God for Jews to wear. So Judas passed the hat
among his surviving men and collected about 2,000 silver drachmas which
were sent to Jerusalem intended for a sacrifice to expiate his dead men's sin
so that it wouldn't jeopardize their resurrection.

Although Judas meant well; what he did was itself a violation of the very
Law that he sought to appease. There are no sacrifices stipulated in the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy for expiating the sins that people take with
them over to the afterlife.

The very Law he sought to appease makes it a crime to either amend,
embellish, add to, revise, edit, upgrade, update, or subtract from the
covenant.

†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.

†. Deut 5:32-33 . . Be careful, therefore, to do as the LORD, your God, has
commanded you, not turning aside to the right or to the left, but following
exactly the way prescribed for you by the LORD, your God,

†. Deut 26:16 . . This day the LORD, your God, commands you to observe
these statutes and decrees. Be careful, then, to observe them with all your
heart and with all your soul.

Therefore, had the priests at Jerusalem accepted Judas Maccabeus' 2,000
silver drachmas for the purpose he intended, they would have been cursed.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this
law!

The phrase "cursed be" is grammatically present tense; so that when Yhvh's
people beak any one of the laws stipulated in the covenant, they incur an
instant curse upon themselves-- no delay, and no waiting period.

Bottom line: What Judas Maccabeus did was just as pagan as the amulets
that his men were wearing when they died.

Q: How can you doubt the truth of 2Mcc 12:38-46? It’s in the Holy Bible!

A: Just because somebody's personal beliefs are recorded in the Bible does
not make their personal beliefs eo ipso truth. Judas believed it was possible
for living Jews to offer sacrifices for the sins of dead Jews. Is it? No;
absolutely not! Were it possible, then a procedure for that purpose would be
stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Atonements for the dead fall into the category of sins of presumption; viz:
unauthorized behavior.

If 2Mcc 12:38-46 teaches anything at all it’s that the Israel of Judas
Maccabeus’ day was spiritually decadent-- just as decadent as it was in the
days of the Judges when every man did that which was right in his own eyes
rather than Yhvh's eyes; and they were still at it even in Christ's day and
age.

†. Mark 7:6-9 . . And Jesus said to them: Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their
heart is far away from me. In futility do they worship me, teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you
hold to the tradition of men.

†. Mark 7:13 . . You invalidate the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Crux has a catholic website for everything.

Right Divider
December 1st, 2015, 09:29 PM
Crux has a catholic website for everything.
The proper term is "Cathoholic".

Cruciform
December 1st, 2015, 09:38 PM
Crux has a Catholic website for everything.
No doubt you would prefer I appeal to an ANTI-Catholic source, as you do? No thanks. I'll stick with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

Also, I don't notice you disproving the content of any of my sources. If you disagree with Catholic teaching, feel free to actually disprove it. And if you can't, then you really have no business commenting about Catholicism on a public forum.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
December 1st, 2015, 09:39 PM
The proper term is "Cathoholic".
Come back if you ever manage to come up with an actual argument. :yawn:

Right Divider
December 1st, 2015, 09:41 PM
Come back if you ever manage to come up with an actual argument. :yawn:
You've never made one, so why should I start?