Discovering the Truth...

26-10-2007 2:31pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Brian, I believe the following verses show that Christ (and his apostles) ask for obedience to the Church:

John 10:16 He that heareth you [the apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Matthew 18:17. And if he [thy brother] will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Now please read again.

God bless,
Noel.

That's more of a default though, if they won't listen to jesus, they should listen to the church
definitely a last resort though

kelly1 · 26-10-2007 2:42pm

bluewolf wrote: »

That's more of a default though, if they won't listen to jesus, they should listen to the church
definitely a last resort though

How so? After Jesus departed the earth, who took His place? Who had the authority to teach and baptize in His name? Was it the general populus? No, it was the apostles. Did Joe Bloggs go about healing people/working miracles and forgiving sins? No! It was only the apostles and their successors (e.g. Barnabas and Timothy) who were ordained. Even Paul was ordained by Ananias having been chosen by Christ.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

God bless,
Noel.

26-10-2007 2:44pm

kelly1 wrote:

How so? After Jesus departed the earth, who took His place? Who had the authority to teach and baptize in His name? Was it the general populus? No, it was the apostles. Did Joe Bloggs go about healing people/working miracles and forgiving sins? No! It was only the apostles and their successors (e.g. Barnabas and Timothy) who were ordained. Even Paul was ordained by Ananias having been chosen by Christ.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

God bless,
Noel.

Yes but jesus' teachings are still readily available so people should still listen to jesus.

kelly1 · 26-10-2007 3:11pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Yes but jesus' teachings are still readily available so people should still listen to jesus.

OK, so you choose to ignore the Church established by Christ on earth and you are free to do so.

Jesus is no longer here (except in the Eucharist) so who do you go to find the truth? Who has the authority to teach in Jesus' name? You can go to the bible but it's quite clear that different churches disgree on moral teachings and matters of faith. For example, who do you go to to find out if contraception is sinful or whether we are saved by faith alone, or whether purgatory exists etc, etc. Ever since the Reformation wars have been fought over matters of doctrine and it all began with 'sola scriptura' which itself is unscriptural!

God bless,
Noel.

PDN · 26-10-2007 3:17pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Ever since the Reformation wars have been fought over matters of doctrine and it all began with 'sola scriptura' which itself is unscriptural!.

No it didn't. The Crusade against the Cathars was one example of a war over doctrine that preceded the Reformation.

BrianCalgary · 26-10-2007 3:54pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Brian, I believe the following verses show that Christ (and his apostles) ask for obedience to the Church:

John 10:16 He that heareth you [the apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Matthew 18:17. And if he [thy brother] will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Now please read again.

God bless,
Noel.

Then we have to determine the definition of church. (thanks for the verses

)

The definition that I see is
1) the body of all believers for all time.
2) the local body of believers

Matthew 18:17 is talking about the local church.

John 10:16 speaks of the apostles at the time and can be carried forth to todays apostles, those being the teachers of Christ's teachings, despise them and ultimately despise God.

BrianCalgary · 26-10-2007 4:02pm

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, so you choose to ignore the Church established by Christ on earth and you are free to do so.

Jesus is no longer here (except in the Eucharist) so who do you go to find the truth? Who has the authority to teach in Jesus' name? You can go to the bible but it's quite clear that different churches disgree on moral teachings and matters of faith. For example, who do you go to to find out if contraception is sinful or whether we are saved by faith alone, or whether purgatory exists etc, etc. Ever since the Reformation wars have been fought over matters of doctrine and it all began with 'sola scriptura' which itself is unscriptural!

God bless,
Noel.

'sola scriptura' is not unscriptural.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Tells us that we are to use scripture for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction. It doesn't tell us tou use anything else.

Mark 7:7-9 talks about jJesus' attitude toward tradition and how dangerous it can be.
7And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Tradition is good, but as long as it has been tested by scripture.

kelly1 · 26-10-2007 5:16pm

Dear God, give me patience!

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Then we have to determine the definition of church. (thanks for the verses )

The definition that I see is
1) the body of all believers for all time.
2) the local body of believers

Where did you get your definitions from?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Matthew 18:17 is talking about the local church.

How do you know? The Church is one as shown below.

John 10:16 speaks of the apostles at the time and can be carried forth to todays apostles, those being the teachers of Christ's teachings, despise them and ultimately despise God.

No, the successors of the apostles were all ordained (bishops/priests/deacons) by "the laying on of hands". See Acts of the apostles for examples.

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church (not churches!).

Romans 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: 5 So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1 Cor 10:17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

Does Christ have many bodies???

God bless,
Noel.

BrianCalgary · 26-10-2007 10:58pm

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church (not churches!).

For this verse we have to read the complete discourse between Jesus and Peter.

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God." 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d]

So the rock on which the church is built is the fact that Jesus is teh son of the living God

Romans 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: 5 So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Yep, we are all members, catholics, Methodist, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc.

1 Cor 10:17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

That we all do. As many denominations with our different styles of worship.

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

And the fuller passage:
24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Christ's body is the church, not Petern, not the Catholic, not the Baptist, not thepentecostal, but Christs body.. Paul's job: to present the word of God. As commissioned by christ in Matthew: baptize in my name teaching them my commandments. (I paraphrase).

kelly1 · 30-10-2007 3:49pm

Brian,

you and I believe different things to be true and therefore we don't share the same faith. Yes, we both accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and we are both baptized but we have little in common as regards our faith. Examples:-

- I believe a priest has the power to absolve sins - you don't
- I believe Mary lived a sinless life - you don't
- I believe Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven - you don't
- I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament - you don't
- I believe in Purgatory - you don't
- I believe in the power of intercession of the saints - you don't
- I believe in mortal sin - you don't
- I believe in final perseverance for salvation - you don't (I think?)
- I believe there is one and only one True Church of Jesus Christ - you don't
- I believe in apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict - you don't
- I believe in Sacred Tradition - you don't
- I believe in seven sacraments - you don't
- I believe contraception is sinful - you don't
- etc, etc

It's clear from the Gospel that Christ wanted unity in His Church. True unity means believing the same doctrines, worshiping in the same manner and having a common government. If I as a Catholic disagreed for instance with the Church's teaching on contraception, I could hardly claim to be in unity with the Church. The teachings of the Church came from Christ via the Holy Spirt to the apostles so its teachings aren't man-made or arbitrary.
Christ wants unity so it's foolish to say that differences in doctrine and tradition don't matter.

Examples of unity of the Church in scripture:-

John 17:20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Christ and Paul warn against disunity:-

Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema

Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,21 Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Do you see what I'm getting at? There is fundamental disunity between Christians! Many have broken away from the Church because they don't hold fast to the faith of the apostles. Heresy is rife. And as far as I can tell, it boils down to pride. Millions of people rejected the teachings of the Church founded by Christ on earth. They interpretation scripture with their own fallible intellect. Many say they are guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting scripture but how can this be when the bible forbids private interpretation.
Millions have embraced the bible as the only source of truth and have rejected equally valid Sacred Tradition.

So basically I think your idea of church unity isn't really based in reality.
There is no true unity among Christian churches except for our common baptism.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 30-10-2007 5:07pm

Folks, infant baptism is another good example of the havoc caused by private interpretation.

Some believe only adults can be baptised. Some believe only full immersion is valid. Some believe baptism is a sacrament which is valid at any age.

The truth of the matter is vitally important. If you believe that only adults can be baptised and an infant dies before baptism, what happens to the soul of that baby? Does he/she go to Hell, to Heaven or Limbo?? Will the person who only had their head wetted in baptism be damned because they weren't fully immersed???

Who is correct??? Where is our guide in the maze of conflicting doctrines? Would anyone care to suggest an answer to this? Has God abandoned us without a guide or compass?? Have we been left to our own devices. Is the Church founded by Christ merely a collective noun representing those who follow Christ or institution with the authority to continue the mission started by Christ on Earth?

How can anyone say these question don't matter? Without the truth we are slaves to ignorance and lies.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 30-10-2007 7:19pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Brian,

you and I believe different things to be true and therefore we don't share the same faith. Yes, we both accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and we are both baptized but we have little in common as regards our faith. Examples:-

- I believe a priest has the power to absolve sins - you don't
- I believe Mary lived a sinless life - you don't
- I believe Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven - you don't
- I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament - you don't
- I believe in Purgatory - you don't
- I believe in the power of intercession of the saints - you don't
- I believe in mortal sin - you don't
- I believe in final perseverance for salvation - you don't (I think?)
- I believe there is one and only one True Church of Jesus Christ - you don't
- I believe in apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict - you don't
- I believe in Sacred Tradition - you don't
- I believe in seven sacraments - you don't
- I believe contraception is sinful - you don't
- etc, etc

It's clear from the Gospel that Christ wanted unity in His Church. True unity means believing the same doctrines, worshiping in the same manner and having a common government. If I as a Catholic disagreed for instance with the Church's teaching on contraception, I could hardly claim to be in unity with the Church. The teachings of the Church came from Christ via the Holy Spirt to the apostles so its teachings aren't man-made or arbitrary.
Christ wants unity so it's foolish to say that differences in doctrine and tradition don't matter.

Examples of unity of the Church in scripture:-

Christ and Paul warn against disunity:-

Do you see what I'm getting at? There is fundamental disunity between Christians! Many have broken away from the Church because they don't hold fast to the faith of the apostles. Heresy is rife. And as far as I can tell, it boils down to pride. Millions of people rejected the teachings of the Church founded by Christ on earth. They interpretation scripture with their own fallible intellect. Many say they are guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting scripture but how can this be when the bible forbids private interpretation.
Millions have embraced the bible as the only source of truth and have rejected equally valid Sacred Tradition.

So basically I think your idea of church unity isn't really based in reality.
There is no true unity among Christian churches except for our common baptism.

God bless,
Noel.

I'd like to categorically state, that I am certainly not 'in unity' with the catholic church. I understand where Brian is coming from in saying 'lets all get along', but unlike some other christian denominations, personally I think RCC is way too far removed for me to consider it christian. Doctrine is one thing, but there are just too many what i would consider blasphemies. I'd never want to be associated with their history, their theology or their methodology. So personally, i think Noel hits the nail on the head. They are too far removed to say they share in a christian faith. They have a catholic faith which involves allegience to a pope and to its man made doctrines. it takes Jesus' title of the Way and The Truth. It puts itself as mediator, so in turn it replaces christ. While we are told we come to God through Christ, they say that you get to christ through them. Yep, Noel, I for one do not share in your faith. I do hope one day, you'll try to see the sense in what is being said. Unfortunately for now, I'm probably just a lost soul to you, or at worst a heathen.

kelly1 · 30-10-2007 7:28pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd like to categorically state, that I am certainly not 'in unity' with the catholic church. I understand where Brian is coming from in saying 'lets all get along', but unlike some other christian denominations, personally I think RCC is way too far removed for me to consider it christian. Doctrine is one thing, but there are just too many what i would consider blasphemies. I'd never want to be associated with their history, their theology or their methodology. So personally, i think Noel hits the nail on the head. They are too far removed to say they share in a christian faith. They have a catholic faith which involves allegience to a pope and to its man made doctrines. it takes Jesus' title of the Way and The Truth. It puts itself as mediator, so in turn it replaces christ. While we are told we come to God through Christ, they say that you get to christ through them. Yep, Noel, I for one do not share in your faith. I do hope one day, you'll try to see the sense in what is being said. Unfortunately for now, I'm probably just a lost soul to you, or at worst a heathen.

Jimi, we all know by now that you have no great love for the Catholic Church. Why do you insist on using every available opportunity to restate your position? Why not contribute to the debate at hand instead of digressing yet again?

The subject of discussion here concerns finding the actual Truth as revealed by Christ. Clearly the bible alone is NOT sufficent! Can you not see this? This is my whole point!

God bless,
Noel.

PDN · 30-10-2007 8:01pm

kelly1 wrote: »

The subject of discussion here concerns finding the actual Truth as revealed by Christ. Clearly the bible alone is NOT sufficent! Can you not see this? This is my whole point!

I'm afraid you've failed to make your point.

What you're essentially saying is:

1. Catholics and non-Catholics disagree on many fundamental beliefs.
2. Therefore the Bible alone is not sufficient, otherwise we would agree.

This is clearly nonsense. The reason we don't agree is because the Catholic Church has added a lot of extra false teachings to the Bible. We don't disagree because the Bible is unclear, we disagree because your Church's traditions attempt to modify and even to contradict Biblical teaching.

JimiTime · 30-10-2007 8:54pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, we all know by now that you have no great love for the Catholic Church. Why do you insist on using every available opportunity to restate your position? Why not contribute to the debate at hand instead of digressing yet again?

The subject of discussion here concerns finding the actual Truth as revealed by Christ. Clearly the bible alone is NOT sufficent! Can you not see this? This is my whole point!

God bless,
Noel.

Twas a bit of a rant alright. i suppose i cosistantly see people like Brian trying to be inclusive, and people like yourself casting derision on it. i understand why you do, just as i understand why Brian has his view. I just wanted to say i have neither. As for adding to the debate. My rant was actually relevant, though it obviously passd you by, as it has done in the past. It is relevant because you reason using the RCC as your authority. Myself, and others reason with the bible as our authority. If something in the bible (or not in the bible), is being argued with yourself, you use an organisation that other christians don't believe is an authority. So declaring that I am not in unity with the RCC, or rather you claiming first that you are not in unity with other christians, means that our common ground is shakey. Thus, being like a Berean does not suffice. You already poured scorn on 'the old chestnts', that people like myself see as evidence that Papal authority is bogus, and that the RCC is certainly not the barers of the truth. So how can one really discuss biblical matters with you, when really, you mean catholic matters? As far as I'm concerned, it'd be like trying to reason with a mormon. They have the bible, but then they have the book of mormon as a little extra. If they can't use the bible to show you something they can use the book of mormon. Similarly, you'd use papal doctrine. Neither is good enough.

kelly1 · 31-10-2007 10:57am

PDN wrote: »

I'm afraid you've failed to make your point.

What you're essentially saying is:

1. Catholics and non-Catholics disagree on many fundamental beliefs.
2. Therefore the Bible alone is not sufficient, otherwise we would agree.

This is clearly nonsense. The reason we don't agree is because the Catholic Church has added a lot of extra false teachings to the Bible. We don't disagree because the Bible is unclear, we disagree because your Church's traditions attempt to modify and even to contradict Biblical teaching.

This is incredible. Here we are at post #67 and nobody has addressed the fundamental question I'm asking! The apparent contradictions can be dealt with in another thread.

Can nobody see the problem I'm getting at?? We have thousands of churches teaching different doctrines and all are reading the same bible. How did we get into this situation??

It's no good attacking the Catholic Church because that's not really relevant to the main question of how to we arrive surely at the Truth? Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

On another thread we have a debate going on about OSAS and the two main protagonists can't agree on whether OSAS is true. How did we get into this sorry state? On the purgatory thread we have a debate on baptism concerning the validity of infant baptims and full immersion. It's crazy!

So folks please, please, please deal with the main question which for clarity's sake is:

How do you know that your interpretation of scripture is correct?

Please don't tell me it doesn't matter because it clearly does. Living in error endangers the soul.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 31-10-2007 11:28am

JimiTime wrote: »

Twas a bit of a rant alright. i suppose i cosistantly see people like Brian trying to be inclusive, and people like yourself casting derision on it. i understand why you do, just as i understand why Brian has his view. I just wanted to say i have neither. As for adding to the debate. My rant was actually relevant, though it obviously passd you by, as it has done in the past. It is relevant because you reason using the RCC as your authority. Myself, and others reason with the bible as our authority. If something in the bible (or not in the bible), is being argued with yourself, you use an organisation that other christians don't believe is an authority. So declaring that I am not in unity with the RCC, or rather you claiming first that you are not in unity with other christians, means that our common ground is shakey. Thus, being like a Berean does not suffice. You already poured scorn on 'the old chestnts', that people like myself see as evidence that Papal authority is bogus, and that the RCC is certainly not the barers of the truth. So how can one really discuss biblical matters with you, when really, you mean catholic matters? As far as I'm concerned, it'd be like trying to reason with a mormon. They have the bible, but then they have the book of mormon as a little extra. If they can't use the bible to show you something they can use the book of mormon. Similarly, you'd use papal doctrine. Neither is good enough.

Why don't you start another thread and pick just one catholic practice/doctrine that you don't agree with and let's debate that?

Just to bring the discussion back on track, can I ask you again what makes your interpretation of scripture more correct than other Christian denominations/churches? And it's no good saying that you have intelligence and reason because the others who disagree with you do too. Is the bible only understandable by those who have a high IQ and strong literary skills?

Neither is it valid to say that you're guided by the Holy Spirit in your interpretation becuase again there is disagreement between various parties.

And apart from that you will not find anything in the bible which states that it is the authority on truth. In fact the bible tells us that the Church is the authority on truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Jimi, I appeal to you to face this question head-on without digression.

God bless,
Noel.

PDN · 31-10-2007 1:23pm

kelly1 wrote: »

This is incredible. Here we are at post #67 and nobody has addressed the fundamental question I'm asking! The apparent contradictions can be dealt with in another thread.

Can nobody see the problem I'm getting at?? We have thousands of churches teaching different doctrines and all are reading the same bible. How did we get into this situation??

It's no good attacking the Catholic Church because that's not really relevant to the main question of how to we arrive surely at the Truth? Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

On another thread we have a debate going on about OSAS and the two main protagonists can't agree on whether OSAS is true. How did we get into this sorry state? On the purgatory thread we have a debate on baptism concerning the validity of infant baptims and full immersion. It's crazy!

So folks please, please, please deal with the main question which for clarity's sake is:

How do you know that your interpretation of scripture is correct?

Please don't tell me it doesn't matter because it clearly does. Living in error endangers the soul.

God bless,
Noel.

There is, in my opinion, little question as to how to interpret the Bible when it comes to the major things we need to know about salvation. Justification by faith etc are sufficiently outlined in Scripture that you cannot come up with a different interpretation without doing violence to the text.

As for OSAS, it is an interesting theological argument, but practically makes little difference. Most Calvinists who believe in OSAS would argue, if someone openly apostasises, that the person wasn't saved in the first place. Therefore those on both sides of the OSAS both accept that living in open sin is incompatible with Christianity.

As for infant baptism, it isn't referred to in Scripture even once. So the debate over infant baptism is nothing to do with different interpretations of Scripture. The same is true of purgatory, contraception,etc. These are other things that people attempt to add to Scripture.

I would certainly argue that on many doctrinal issues it doesn't matter whether I am correct or not. For example, whether Christ's return is premillennial or postmillennial might be an interesting subject for debate, but it's hardly crucial to anyone's salvation.

I actually think that the various denominations and streams within Christianity are a good thing. The human race is diverse and so different churches will appeal to different kinds of people. I find the desire to want everyone to conform to your church's opinions to be rather distasteful.

JimiTime · 31-10-2007 2:13pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Why don't you start another thread and pick just one catholic practice/doctrine that you don't agree with and let's debate that?

It seems you've missed my point once again. It can easily be shown using a bible, where RC doctrine is spurious. However, as I have repeated, the bible is not your authority, the RCC is. To debate such a thing with lack of an authoritive common ground is a pointless exercise IMO.

Just to bring the discussion back on track, can I ask you again what makes your interpretation of scripture more correct than other Christian denominations/churches? And it's no good saying that you have intelligence and reason because the others who disagree with you do too. Is the bible only understandable by those who have a high IQ and strong literary skills?

First of all, I resent the implication that high IQ and literacy skill was a point of mine

What I said was, I had the ability to read. A simple reading of the life and times of Jesus is all I need to show me that there is a huge indiscrepancy between his way and the way of the RCC. Second of all, I'll repeat my second point. You approach the subject from the wrong direction! You approach it as if God is a strict headmaster who wants you to pass an exam. God wants love and faith! You are the one who seems more bent on insisting on IQ. To you its about having people go to college and study for years to become 'qualified'. Only then can you really know scripture! So thats 'your' arguement not mine. Its not about my interpretation being better etc. Its about taking responsability for your spiritual health. Not leaving it with a group of minders. If there is something you see that is spurious, remain faithful in Christ and stand against it. Don't just switch off and say, 'well I didn't go to seminary for years so who am I to question'. 'All of us' have been given the tools to seek the truth. The truth is Jesus Christ. If it contradicts Jesus, it contradicts truth.

And apart from that you will not find anything in the bible which states that it is the authority on truth. In fact the bible tells us that the Church is the authority on truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Indeed, Jesus is the authority on truth. The bible is our authority on Jesus. We extract the truth from the scriptures. Observing Jesus' lifes teaching and example. As for the scripture you referenced, it doesn't mention anything about a 'one true church being the barers of truth'. It is an instruction on how one should conduct themselves in a christian congregation. Did you notice the preceeding scripture about ministers being a 'husband to one wife'? But of course the RCC had a different view on that, and sure thats their right as the barers of the truth. So its against what the bible says, who cares, we know better.

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Above is another scripture from Timothy.

Jimi, I appeal to you to face this question head-on without digression.

Indeed, said as if thats what I've been doing. You just dismiss opinions that you don't like. You have been complaining that your question is not being answered. It is, just not in a way you like.

Here is another example of why reasoning with you could tend to be a wasted effort as biblical validity means little to you. I've taken your post to Brian and pasted it below and replaced your 'I believe' beginning with, 'the bible does not teach'. I've even left out the bits that you would try to argue are biblical, and just stuck with the doctrines that are clearly not in the bible.

- the bible does not teach that a priest has the power to absolve sins
- the bible does not teach Mary lived a sinless life
- the bible does not teach Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven
- the bible does not teach the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament
- the bible does not teach Purgatory
- the bible does not teach the power of intercession of the saints
- the bible does not teach Sacred Tradition as you describe it
- the bible does not teach seven sacraments
- the bible does not teach contraception is sinful
- etc, etc Indeed!

BrianCalgary · 31-10-2007 5:40pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, we all know by now that you have no great love for the Catholic Church. Why do you insist on using every available opportunity to restate your position? Why not contribute to the debate at hand instead of digressing yet again?

The subject of discussion here concerns finding the actual Truth as revealed by Christ. Clearly the bible alone is NOT sufficent! Can you not see this? This is my whole point!

God bless,
Noel.

And the Bible is sufficient. It is the only document we have written by those who walked with Christ.

Jesus tells us in Matthew to 28: 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Christ tells us to obey everything that He has commanded. What He has commanded is laid out in the gospels and then Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, in their letters, give answers to specific questions, in their writings.

And since you so aptly point out that Christianity is about discovering th etruths as set out by Christ, what better way than going to the source of His teachings?

All we need is scripture. It is also good to continue to meet (A verse, but I forget the reference). On meeting we can discuss points of theology both primary and secondary.

We need to remember that there are primary pints (salvation through Faith as one) and secondary which PDN points out, that don't affect salvation. Spinkling or dunking, does not affect salvation as an example.

mdebets · 01-11-2007 2:22am

kelly1 wrote: »

Brian,

you and I believe different things to be true and therefore we don't share the same faith. Yes, we both accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and we are both baptized but we have little in common as regards our faith. Examples:-

- I believe a priest has the power to absolve sins - you don't
- I believe Mary lived a sinless life - you don't
- I believe Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven - you don't
- I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament - you don't
- I believe in Purgatory - you don't
- I believe in the power of intercession of the saints - you don't
- I believe in mortal sin - you don't
- I believe in final perseverance for salvation - you don't (I think?)
- I believe there is one and only one True Church of Jesus Christ - you don't
- I believe in apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict - you don't
- I believe in Sacred Tradition - you don't
- I believe in seven sacraments - you don't
- I believe contraception is sinful - you don't
- etc, etc

Do you really think, these little differences really matter? And the big similarities like the believe in Jesus, The 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount count for nothing?

Then you really don't get Christianity at all.
Have a look at the Bible and look at all the stories where Jesus deals with the Pharisees. They were a group, who followed all the religious laws and saw themselves as pious (does this remember you of someone you know?). There is not one story where Jesus says to them, yes you are right, you followed all the rules to the point, you therefore go straight into heaven. No, he always prefers the rule breaker, who tries to live a live not to exact rules, but in the spirit of Jesus.

It's really sad, to see someone close their eyes like that for the truth and don't see the vast community of the Christian Church (and I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic one, but about all Christian churches).

But I'm happy that it seems that even in the Roman Catholic church there are people who see that it's wrong. And it's even better that some even admit (like one Priest did recently after he was preaching at our Protestant church) that he was saddened that he couldn't join us at the lord's table.
And I'm even happier that where i come from, it's a regular occurrence that Protestants go to the Catholic Eucharist and the other way around.
Or as a former Pastor of mine used to say. Jesus invited Judas who would betray him to the last supper and invited everyone to follow on with the Eucharist. Who are we to deny this gift to anyone?

kelly1 · 01-11-2007 11:55am

PDN wrote: »

There is, in my opinion, little question as to how to interpret the Bible when it comes to the major things we need to know about salvation. Justification by faith etc are sufficiently outlined in Scripture that you cannot come up with a different interpretation without doing violence to the text.

OK, let's take the example of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

John 6:53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

In this passage Christ explicitly states that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life in us. How does one go about eating flesh and drinking blood symbolicaly and would it have any meaning?

Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

The belief in the real presence in the Blessed Sacrament goes back to the earliest days of the Church. There was no question of the body and blood being symbolic until the reformation. Was the Church living under an illusion for 1500 years until Calvin??

Nobody can say this is a trivial question. The truth must be known!

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 01-11-2007 3:02pm

JimiTime wrote: »

It can easily be shown using a bible, where RC doctrine is spurious.

No it can't. Please prove this!

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, Jesus is the authority on truth. The bible is our authority on Jesus. We extract the truth from the scriptures.

Maybe you didn't read 1 Tim 3:15:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The bible doesn't claim to be the pillar of truth! Of course that's not to say the bible contains error. Of course it doesn't, it's the Word of God.

JimiTime wrote: »

You have been complaining that your question is not being answered. It is, just not in a way you like.

Nobody is tackling the question directly. It's being side-stepped.

JimiTime wrote: »

biblical validity means little to you.

That's completely untrue. The bible is without error because it's the Word of God.

JimiTime wrote: »

- the bible does not teach that a priest has the power to absolve sins
>>> See John 20:22-23 and James 5:14-15
- the bible does not teach Mary lived a sinless life
>>> not explicitly but she is the mother of Christ in the flesh. She was "full of grace". The Church doesn't define dogma without very good reason.
- the bible does not teach Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven
>>> true but same as above.
- the bible does not teach the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament
>>> Matthew 26:26, John 6:54, 1 Cor 10:16 and many others.
- the bible does not teach Purgatory
>>> it does but not explicitly. Several passages point to a place of punishment after death. I'll deal with this in the Purgatory thread.
- the bible does not teach the power of intercession of the saints
>>> See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html#saints-III
- the bible does not teach Sacred Tradition as you describe it
>>> See 2 Thess 3:6
- the bible does not teach seven sacraments
>>> See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ (sacraments section)
- the bible does not teach contraception is sinful
>>> true afaik but the Church does have the power to "bind and loose" as described in the Gospel.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 01-11-2007 3:40pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And the Bible is sufficient.

If the bible alone were sufficent, there would be no arguments over doctrine.
That is my whole argument!

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And since you so aptly point out that Christianity is about discovering th etruths as set out by Christ, what better way than going to the source of His teachings?

The bible isn't the source of His teachings. The Church founded on the apostles is and the Church came before the bible. The Church wrote the New Testament so isn't it unreasonable to say the bible "knows" more than the Church? Isn't it also unreasonable to say that the Church no longer had teaching authority after the NT was written?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

All we need is scripture.

Again see 1 Tim 3:15 and

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Paul wasn't referring to scripture here but the gospel which he preached.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 01-11-2007 3:47pm

kelly1 wrote: »

No it can't. Please prove this!

Ehh, indulgences, the crusades, the wealth and way of life of your pope and bishops etc. Hardly Apostolic!

You know all the points and you're happy to leave your spritual health in their care, you don't seem ignorant, just dismissive. Fair enough. Love God, Love your neighbour, and Love your enemy, and hopefully we'll meet in paradise and bask in full knowledge together. Hopefully that is if you don't tell God that he's wrong because the pope says different:p

kelly1 · 01-11-2007 3:58pm

mdebets wrote: »

Do you really think, these little differences really matter? And the big similarities like the believe in Jesus, The 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount count for nothing?

These differences are far from little. Not knowing the truth jeopardizes our salvation.

mdebets wrote: »

Have a look at the Bible and look at all the stories where Jesus deals with the Pharisees. They were a group, who followed all the religious laws and saw themselves as pious (does this remember you of someone you know?). There is not one story where Jesus says to them, yes you are right, you followed all the rules to the point, you therefore go straight into heaven. No, he always prefers the rule breaker, who tries to live a live not to exact rules, but in the spirit of Jesus.

Jesus condemned man-made laws such as washing of hands and healing on the sabbath because they are not required by God. The "rules" of the Catholic Church are based around doing God's will by living morally.

philologos · 01-11-2007 4:16pm

kelly1 wrote: »

On the face of it you would think that correct interpretation of scripture requires nothing more than intelligence and reason. Yet, since the Reformation, we've had endless debates over the true meaning of scripture. So clearly intelligence and reason isn't enough. Some would say that the Holy Spirit enlightens us to the true meaning and while I know this is possible, thousands of denominations who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit still can't manage to agree.

So I think my question is still a valid one.

God bless,
Noel.

By trained I would generally mean those who have had intensive training in the word of God. Most likely those who have theology degrees, but not excluding anyone else who has analysed Holy Scripture in detail.

kelly1 · 01-11-2007 4:51pm

Jakkass wrote: »

By trained I would generally mean those who have had intensive training in the word of God. Most likely those who have theology degrees, but not excluding anyone else who has analysed Holy Scripture in detail.

There are Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians with degrees and doctorates and they can't manage to agree. What I don't understand is how the "reformers" embraced the bible and chose to ignore tradition, which is equally valid.

From the beginning of the Church confession and absolution was practiced, the belief in the real presence was upheld, all seven sacraments were administered, priest and bishops were ordained etc, etc and now it's been thrown out the window by Protestants

If you read the early Church fathers or the docments from the various councils (e.g. Trent) you'll see these traditions running right through.

I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Does anyone seriously believe that the Church taught error on such matters as confession, the Eucharist, infant baptism and Purgatory from the beginning up to the time of the Reformation?? All these practices are to be found in the early Church documents right up to the present day. Does nobody see a problem with this thinking?

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 01-11-2007 5:40pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Does anyone seriously believe that the Church taught error on such matters as confession, the Eucharist, infant baptism and Purgatory from the beginning up to the time of the Reformation?? All these practices are to be found in the early Church documents right up to the present day. Does nobody see a problem with this thinking?

God bless,
Noel.

Noel, for flips sake!! You are completely and wholly missing the point!! You can rant on about traditions till the cows come home! It is a NON POINT. All one needs to do to show that tradition means very little in the way of truth, is cite ONE example of a tradition that would go against Christs teaching. Indulgences would be one. Burning people at steaks is another. Once there is found error in such practice, then the whole system is brought into disrepute. So that is why traditions mean squat to truth! We know the scriptures are from Gods people, and the Gospels from Christs apostles. Apart from a hugely debatable scripture, where you would argue Peter is named first infallible pope, there is 'Nothing' to suggest that RCC is apostolic sucession. Even the fact that Peter had to be reprimanded by Paul relating to circumcision, I would see as evidence enough that Peter was not the leader of 'The Church'! Seriously man, just because its old, does not mean its right. As I said before, but you never really acknowledge, The Jews were Gods chosen people. But they had traditions that were bogus. They also had different sects among them. Christ reprimanded them. You are hugely complacent and absolutely blinkered to anything that might rattle your faith in 'the rcc'. The RCC is already dying, just like so many of the denominations. True Christianity lies in the hearts of its true believers. So without beating around the bush, You have it so, so wrong. With 100% certainty i can say that. You don't need to change your details, you need to change your whole approach. You need to reasess where your faith really lies. This is not one upmanship Noel, you are obviously a Zealous man, who is loyal to a tradition which has been instilled in you. I'm not saying become a protestant or a baptist or anything. I'm saying, take responsability for your spiritual health. Keep that zealousnouss, and 'be like a Berean'. Don't be afraid that you may be wrong, God is not the strict headmaster you think he is. He is concerned with matters of the heart, not in arguements about words. Just direct your faith to him alone and let him be your guide, not men who are prone to error. You have the tools my friend.

kelly1 · 01-11-2007 7:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Noel, for flips sake!! You are completely and wholly missing the point!!

Jimi I believe you are missing the point! You haven't yet given me one good reason to say why your interpretation of scripture is correct, have you? We can all read! You insist on attacking the CC instead of answering my fundamental question. Leaving the CC aside, how do you know your interpretation of scripture is correct??????!!!!!!!

JimiTime wrote: »

You can rant on about traditions till the cows come home! It is a NON POINT. All one needs to do to show that tradition means very little in the way of truth, is cite ONE example of a tradition that would go against Christs teaching. Indulgences would be one.

Indulgences is based in scripture and BTW, I case you haven't heard, the Church doesn't sell indulgences these days.

JimiTime wrote: »

Burning people at steaks is another.

That's just plain silly. Burning at the stake was never a tradition for God's sake!

JimiTime wrote: »

there is 'Nothing' to suggest that RCC is apostolic sucession.

Haven't you heard of ordination by the laying on of hands! It's a sacrament. The Church has a full record of every bishop and every pope ever ordained.

God bless,
Noel.

philologos · 01-11-2007 7:30pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Indulgences is based in scripture and BTW, I case you haven't heard, the Church doesn't sell indulgences these days.

Noel, have you not heard the story of Simon and Peter in Acts:

Acts 8:18-22 wrote:

Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of hands, he offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands on can receive the Holy Spirit". But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God's gift with money You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you"

Also in the very last bit. Why doesn't Peter not tell Simon to go to a minister of the Lord to repent, as opposed to praying to God himself to confess? Just out of interest I'm curious. Although I can see confession to a priest as a bonus, as a man with such wisdom may be able to offer some advice in solving your problem with the Lord however I do not feel it is neccessary.

JimiTime · 02-11-2007 2:45am

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi I believe you are missing the point! You haven't yet given me one good reason to say why your interpretation of scripture is correct, have you? We can all read! You insist on attacking the CC instead of answering my fundamental question. Leaving the CC aside, how do you know your interpretation of scripture is correct??????!!!!!!!

I assure you Noel, it is most certainly you who is missing the point!! i have answered your question on numerous occasions, but here we go again. Are you ready!! ITS NOT ABOUT MY INTERPREATATION BEING CORRECT. ITS ABOUT 'LIVING AS CHRIST TOLD US AND SHOWED US'. ITS ABOUT USING SOME OF HIS WONDERFUL ADVICE ABOUT SPOTTING HYPOCRITES AND PRETENDERS. 'A TREE WILL BE KNOWN BY ITS FRUITS'. ITS ABOUT BEING LIKE THE BEREANS IN MAKING SURE DOCTRINE CHECKS OUT AGAINST SCRIPTURE. ITS ABOUT HAVING FAITH IN GOD OUR FATHER AND IN HIS SON AND OUR KING JESUS CHRIST. ITS ABOUT TAKING RESPONSABILITY FOR YOUR SPIRITUAL HEALTH AND CONDITIONING YOUR HEART TO SEEK TRUTH HONESTLY, SO THAT THE MOUTH SPEAKS WITH THE ABUNDANCE OF THE HEART. WHAT I KNOW, IS THAT I HAVE USED THE TOOLS AND THE ADVICE THAT GOD GAVE US, TO SEE FALSE DOCTRINE AND SPURIOUS TEACHING. THE MOMENT ONE THINKS THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS IS THE MOMENT ONE IS VULNERABLE TO NEVER SEE THE TRUTH. I'D NEVER BE SO STUPID. THE MOMENT YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN A TEAM OF MEN, IS THE MOMENT YOU ARE VULNERABLE TO LIES. NOW, THAT IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, WHICH IS A SUMMARY OF WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR THIS WHOLE THREAD! IT IS NOT AVOIDING OR SIDESTEPPING, IT SETS OUT TO SHOW HOW YOUR QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT WHICH YOU ASK IT, IS IRRELEVANT!

Indulgences is based in scripture and BTW, I case you haven't heard, the Church doesn't sell indulgences these days.

Why doesn't it still do it then. If its based on scripture? Seeing how indulgences paid your bail out of purgatory, and purgatory is not in the bible, then I fail to see how indulgences could be Christian teaching. Could you really imagine Noel, seriously think about it now, Jesus on his ministry telling someone, 'If you pay me or whoever, some money, the soul of your dead loved one may be going to heaven quicker?? I mean, its rudimentary!!

That's just plain silly. Burning at the stake was never a tradition for God's sake!

Oh sorry, it was just common practice of 'gods representitive on earth'. Love God, Love your neighbour and Love your 'enemy'. Now how does one twist these most important commands from our Lord, to justify burning people to death?? Funnily enough, there isn't a mention of any christians taking such actions against anyone in the new testament. They recieved quite a bit of persecution, but remained mild tempered. Paul got beaten to an inch of his life, he didn't round up a posse to go kill the enemies of Christ. He obeyed Christ, and left vengeance in the hands of its owner. God.

Havent you heard of ordination by the laying on of hands! It's a sacrament. The Church has a full record of every bishop and every pope ever ordained.

Noel, do you even try to understand the point? If the RCC is found to be spreading false doctrine, or showing in its works that it is not Christian, then they are not reliable in detailing their own apostolic history. i for one, find it baffling that you or anyone could see the sordid history of 'Gods true church' and not question if maybe that self appointed title is a little eh...erroneous. If you really wanted to take the time, you could look into the papal history. You will find its not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. plenty of legend etc. Here is an extract from a book by 'Catholic' Historian Richard P. McBrien:

Although Catholic tradition, beginning in the late second and early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point to the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop. Not until the pontificate of St. Pius I in the middle of the second century (ca. 142-ca. 155) did the Roman church have a monoepiscopal structure of government (one bishop as pastoral leader of a diocese).Those whom Catholic tradition lists as Peter's immediate successors (Linus, clement, et al.) did not function as the one bishop of Rome.(The succession lists were passed down by St. Irenaeus of Lyons [d. ca. 200] and the historian St. Hegesippus [d. ca.180], and were attested by Eusebius of Caesarea [d. ca. 339], often called the "Father of Church History.") The Roman community seems instead to have had a corporate or collegial form of pastoral leadership. Those counted among the earliest popes, therefore, may very well have been simply the individuals who presided over the local council of elders or presbyter-bishops of the community. In any case, the popes of the first four centuries—that is, until the watershed papacy of Leo I in the middle of the fifth century—functioned with relatively limited authority beyond Rome and its immediate environs.

kelly1 · 02-11-2007 11:19am

Jimi, I've asked a perfectly valid question and all you can say is that I've asked the wrong question i.e. you've side-stepped it. If you don't want to answer it, that's your choice but please quit ranting about the CC.

God bless,
Noel.

philologos · 02-11-2007 12:28pm

Will you deal with my query too kelly1 if you could I'd appreciate it. I want to know what the general RC interpretation of the quote I've mentioned is.

kelly1 · 02-11-2007 1:28pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Will you deal with my query too kelly1 if you could I'd appreciate it. I want to know what the general RC interpretation of the quote I've mentioned is.

My interpretation of the quote is probably the same as everyone else's. Peter is speaking against simony which would support the fact that the sale of indulgences is wrong.

The question you asked about Acts 8:22 is a good one. Yes I believe sins can be forgiven by confessing to God directly. Certainly venial sins can but I don't know about mortal sins. I never managed to get a definitive answer on this point.

James 5 shows that priests had the power to forgive sins

14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

John 20:22-23 shows that the apostles had the power to forgive sins.

22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

See also

2 Cor 2:10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

2 Cor 5:18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

Confession and absolution have the advantages of knowing for certain that your sins are forgiven and also because absolution is a sacrament, it confers grace which gives us strength to avoid sin.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 02-11-2007 1:39pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, I've asked a perfectly valid question and all you can say is that I've asked the wrong question i.e. you've side-stepped it. If you don't want to answer it, that's your choice but please quit ranting about the CC.

God bless,
Noel.

LOL. this is bordering on the ridiculous now Noel, come on. i tell you what, you tell me the answer you want? Seriously, just because i haven't given you an answer you can shoot down with some pre-prepared rebuttal does not make it a non-answer. I have very much 'answered' your question, just without accepting your poison chalice. And stop crying persecution. Showing falsehood in the RCC is part of my answer to your question. You just seem to want to put your hands over your ears and go 'la la la la la'. Let me break it down again for you:

1. You are coming from a perspective whereby you believe that the RCC is the sole barers of truth in The lord. Their interpretation flawless due to Apostolic succession.

2. With that your question is 'We can't all be right, all the various denominations don't agree on interpretation'. You then use this point to try 'prove' that there is only one true church, being RCC. I.E. how do you know your interpretation is correct.

I have tackled your question head on, just not in a way that you like. This is because of a few things:

1. Your question assumes that we all think our interpretations are right. Which I for one don't. Its like you asking me 'Why did you kill that man'. i answer, 'but I didn't kill that man'. You answer, 'stop sidestepping the question'. Your question works on the assumption that i think my interpretation is flawless, the same as the question above works on the assumption that i killed the guy in question.

2. It works on the assumption that interpretation is the key. i have tried to explain, quite plainly, that such assumption means you are focussing on the wrong thing, but all you have to say is that I'm dodging the question. A question which is also an acussation that I think my Interpretation is flawless.

I have also very fairly, and relevantly, used examples of certain RC practices to show that your belief that there is only 'one true church' that being the RCC, is an erroneous belief. I have shown my usage of Jesus Christs advice to beware of false teachers (Let a tree be known by its fruits), to show that the tree (rcc) has borne bad fruit (burnings, indulgences etc). i think you have been very rudely dismissive of my point as being just anti-catholic ranting. Well you can play the victim all you want Noel, but i have remained more than relevant.

mdebets · 02-11-2007 1:47pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus condemned man-made laws such as washing of hands and healing on the sabbath because they are not required by God. The "rules" of the Catholic Church are based around doing God's will by living morally.

No these rules weren't man made they were following the strict interpretation of God's law. The not healing on the sabbath comes from you should not work on sabbath. This interpretation contradicts however the spirit of God's laws that you should have compassion for your neighbours. Thats why Jesus condemed it. As according to you, the bible is right, this would suggest that for Jesus the spirit was more important than a following of the laws to the last point.
If you follow this example you could deduct that the living of a Christian life and following the 10 commandmends and cerman on the mount are more important then what you believe in some minor details. And the changes are reallyjust some minor details which have no influence whatsoever on the core Christian message.
Take for example the Immaculate Conception. WHat changed on the core Message of the Catholic church from the time before it became a dogma in 1854 and afterwards?

mdebets · 02-11-2007 1:50pm

kelly1 wrote: »

The belief in the real presence in the Blessed Sacrament goes back to the earliest days of the Church. There was no question of the body and blood being symbolic until the reformation. Was the Church living under an illusion for 1500 years until Calvin??

You could ask the same about the Immaculate Conception. It wasn't a dogma before 1854, so you weren't required to believe it. So was the teaching of the church wrong before that? Did everyone who lived before that went to Hell, because he didn't believe it?

kelly1 · 02-11-2007 2:26pm

Your question assumes that we all think our interpretations are right. Which I for one don't

Jimi, like you I do my best to live according to the message of the Gospel and I walk with Christ daily (most of the time). I believe God is kind, compassionate and quick to forgive the repentant sinner.

Taking contraception as an example, it's either sinful or it's not. I want to live as much as possible in accordance with God's will and I don't want to take a chance with contraception only to find out after I die that it's "intrinsically evil". God of course will take ignorance into account when it comes to judgement.

OK, so you're prepared to live with the possibility that you could be in error and believe that God doesn't care. That would make me uncomfortable to be honest.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 02-11-2007 3:00pm

Finally:) The point is recieved. Thank you.

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, like you I do my best to live according to the message of the Gospel and I walk with Christ daily (most of the time). I believe God is kind, compassionate and quick to forgive the repentant sinner.

Absolutely.

Taking contraception as an example, it's either sinful or it's not. I want to live as much as possible in accordance with God's will and I don't want to take a chance with contraception only to find out after I die that it's "intrinsically evil". God of course will take ignorance into account when it comes to judgement.

OK, so you're prepared to live with the possibility that you could be in error and believe that God doesn't care. That would make me uncomfortable to be honest.

Think about what you are saying here Noel. You don't want to take the chance on contraception being evil. But yet you are taking the chance that the organisation you are loyal to may not be what it says it is.

If I may:
I personally don't think the pill is a good idea for women, on the basis that it messes with their nature, and has a negative effect on their health IMO.
I don't believe in a half hearted teaching of 'don't have sex before marriage, but here's a condom just in case'.
However, I see no evidence that within the confines of a loving marriage, that a couple can not 'plan' a family. I mean, what is the difference between using a condom and withdrawl? I'm sure you see the context of Onan was to do with disobedience rather than his action?

I would ask, do you, in your relationship with God, think that he would see it as evil? If so, then you make the conciencious choice not to use it. However, it is certainly not unreasonable to argue that it is not evil, and that there is nothing to suggest that such family planning is evil. again, within the confines of marriage. It would certainly be wrong to force the anti-contraception stance on married people.

Secondly, on such a small, unclear detail you would be concerned. As i said, a detail which is not legislated against in scripture so could be considered a little unclear. However, you are quite happy to let an organisation call themselves 'gods representitives on earth', quite categoriacally disobey Jesus himself by burning and killing their enemies. Charging indulgences. Adding doctrine that has no biblical basis etc. These people are the folk you advocate, and leave your spiritual health with. Should you not be more concerned with the most obvious shows of disobedience to Christ?

kelly1 · 02-11-2007 3:34pm

mdebets wrote: »

No these rules weren't man made they were following the strict interpretation of God's law. The not healing on the sabbath comes from you should not work on sabbath. This interpretation contradicts however the spirit of God's laws that you should have compassion for your neighbours. Thats why Jesus condemed it. As according to you, the bible is right, this would suggest that for Jesus the spirit was more important than a following of the laws to the last point.

OK, agreed.

mdebets wrote: »

If you follow this example you could deduct that the living of a Christian life and following the 10 commandmends and cerman on the mount are more important then what you believe in some minor details. And the changes are reallyjust some minor details which have no influence whatsoever on the core Christian message.

I accept the core of the Christian message like every other Christian. But I don't see how anyone can say that for example
that the real presense or not of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is of no importance. Jesus did after all say that "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you" John 6:54. Nobody want to have no life within them!

mdebets wrote: »

Take for example the Immaculate Conception. WHat changed on the core Message of the Catholic church from the time before it became a dogma in 1854 and afterwards?

I don't know really. Probably not a whole lot.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 02-11-2007 6:01pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Think about what you are saying here Noel. You don't want to take the chance on contraception being evil. But yet you are taking the chance that the organisation you are loyal to may not be what it says it is.

Yes I'm placing my trust in the Church because I believe it is the same Church referred to by Christ in Mt 16:18. You are also taking a chance by not accepting the Church founded by Christ. I know you don't believe that though

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally don't think the pill is a good idea for women, on the basis that it messes with their nature, and has a negative effect on their health IMO.

There is a more serious effect in that the pill can prevent an fertilized egg implanting in the uterus i.e. can be an abortifacient.

JimiTime wrote: »

I mean, what is the difference between using a condom and withdrawl?

none really. Withdrawl is wrong too.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm sure you see the context of Onan was to do with disobedience rather than his action?

I'm inclined not to agree. The way I read it God killed Onan because withdrew!

9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

I don't see any reason to believe the "detestable thing" was Onan's disobedience.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, you are quite happy to let an organisation call themselves 'gods representitives on earth', quite categoriacally disobey Jesus himself by burning and killing their enemies.
Charging indulgences.

We've been over this ground already.

JimiTime wrote: »

Adding doctrine that has no biblical basis etc.

Remember that the Church wrote the NT and that as John said

Jn 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Christ sent the apostles in the world to teach, not a book.

JimiTime wrote: »

These people are the folk you advocate, and leave your spiritual health with. Should you not be more concerned with the most obvious shows of disobedience to Christ?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Christ never promised that any of His followers would be free from sin. Even St. Paul struggled with sin:

15 For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do.....22 For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. 24 Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

Blessing and peace brother!
Noel.

JimiTime · 02-11-2007 7:41pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes I'm placing my trust in the Church because I believe it is the same Church referred to by Christ in Mt 16:18. You are also taking a chance by not accepting the Church founded by Christ. I know you don't believe that though

There is a more serious effect in that the pill can prevent an fertilized egg implanting in the uterus i.e. can be an abortifacient.

none really. Withdrawl is wrong too.

I'm inclined not to agree. The way I read it God killed Onan because withdrew!

9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

I don't see any reason to believe the "detestable thing" was Onan's disobedience.

We've been over this ground already.

Remember that the Church wrote the NT and that as John said

Jn 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Christ sent the apostles in the world to teach, not a book.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Christ never promised that any of His followers would be free from sin. Even St. Paul struggled with sin:

Blessing and peace brother!
Noel.

Well I suppose i should be happy that you got my point at least. you know all the facts, and are content in the conclusions you've drawn. Fair enough.

At least you consider me brother.

God Bless:)
Jimi.

wolfsbane · 03-11-2007 8:52pm

kelly1 said:

James 5 shows that priests had the power to forgive sins

14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church

I'm sorry not to have responded to your most interesting posts earlier, but I have been busy on another thread and am now restricted by time.

Let me ask two brief questions however:
1. What version are you using that translates the Greek presbuteros as priests? The word means elders, not priests. The Greek for priests is hiereus.

2. You originally said:

Up to the time of the Reformation, there was only one Christian Church whose teachings never changed (and still haven't changed).

Of course you have forgotten the Eastern Church, which split with Rome long before the Reformation; and the many believer-only churches that were hounded to death by the RCC down the centuries before the Reformation. But the question I want to ask from your statement is this:
Are all the teachings of the Popes infallible? If not, how do we know which ones are and which ones aren't? Does that not put you in at least as much difficulty as the Protestants?

philologos · 04-11-2007 1:46pm

kelly1 wrote:

9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

It was a detestable thing because Onan had disobeyed the command of the Lord, and had deprived his brothers wife of children? I don't think the spilling of the seed was detestable, it was his selfishness.

kelly1 · 05-11-2007 11:44am

Jakkass wrote: »

It was a detestable thing because Onan had disobeyed the command of the Lord, and had deprived his brothers wife of children? I don't think the spilling of the seed was detestable, it was his selfishness.

I don't see how you come up with this interpretation. Notice the word "therefore". Onan was disobedient to Juda, not the Lord.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 05-11-2007 2:20pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't see how you come up with this interpretation. Notice the word "therefore". Onan was disobedient to Juda, not the Lord.

God bless,
Noel.

This is highly disingenous Noel. You can argue for your interpretation, fair enough. But to say 'I don't know how you come up with that interpretation' to Jackass is ridiculous. Lets see it in context.

Genesis 38
6And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7But Er, Judah’s firstborn,(G) was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. 8Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to(H) your brother’s wife and(I) perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." 9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.

It is as plain as your face that one can interpret this as punishment for not fulfilling his duty as brother in law. Spilling his seed being the method of disobedience that caused God to see him wicked, not the act of spilling his seed itself. To say 'you can't see how jackass can get that interpretation',

. Disagree with it, but don't try say that that is not a valid interpretation.

I'm sure if your church said it was that way, you'd be trying to tell us, 'how we see it another way'.

philologos · 05-11-2007 9:02pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't see how you come up with this interpretation. Notice the word "therefore". Onan was disobedient to Juda, not the Lord.

Well Noel, it's disobedient to the Lord as in the Law, a brother of the deceased male was expected to provide a child to the widow, so that the deceased would not depart childless. Eusebius in his History of the Church also claims this is the reasons why the two genealogies of Christ differ, one takes into account fathers according to the law, and one takes account of biological fathers where possible.

My cross reference Bible seems to agree with me: which led me to the following verse:

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 wrote:

When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not by married outside of the family to a stranger. Her husbands brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whome she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

Refusal to fulfil the Lord's law and ultimately disobedience, was the reason for Onan's death. Not neccessarily the use of a form of contraception. It was more a outright refusal (assuming this happened on several occasions) to follow his duty to his brother while continuing to have sex with his widow making a mockery of the Law of the Lord.

kelly1 · 06-11-2007 11:57am

Jakkass wrote: »

Well Noel, it's disobedient to the Lord as in the Law, a brother of the deceased male was expected to provide a child to the widow, so that the deceased would not depart childless. Eusebius in his History of the Church also claims this is the reasons why the two genealogies of Christ differ, one takes into account fathers according to the law, and one takes account of biological fathers where possible.

My cross reference Bible seems to agree with me: which led me to the following verse:

Refusal to fulfil the Lord's law and ultimately disobedience, was the reason for Onan's death. Not neccessarily the use of a form of contraception. It was more a outright refusal (assuming this happened on several occasions) to follow his duty to his brother while continuing to have sex with his widow making a mockery of the Law of the Lord.

I take your point but I still think the other interpretation is equally likely. Sometimes I wish the bible was more explicit on these things!

God bless,
Noel.

Ashanti~Rose · 06-11-2007 3:38pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe I did Dave. The Church wrote the New Testament under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus in John 14:26.

My own interpretation is of no use because I don't have the authority to do so. My point is that the NT was written by the Apostles and so the Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture correctly. If you want to understand the true meaning of a book, you go to the authors don't you?

God bless,
Noel.

Hi Kelly,interesting point.If you want to understand the true meaning of a book look to the authors..the bible was written by men,edited by men and who knows but God if they were divinely inspired messages or not?
Sharonxoxo

Discovering the Truth...

Comments