I believe the Church is the Body of Christ,
Colossians 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:

Imbued with His Power:
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. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

De Maria

Christ is the head of the body of the church.. which means the body are the members of a ministry within a structure. Christ is known as the foundation as well.

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.



Try taking all that is being said when refer to scripture 1 Colossians1:24

Col 1:23-29 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, [B]which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;, Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

As for Imbued with His Power: More like Imbued in His service or rule Matthew 28 18 All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

Christ is the head of the body of the church.. which means the body are the members of a ministery within a structure. Christ is known as the foundation as well.

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.


Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Who is the servant of all? The church.. Who is the servant working for? Christ

I agree with everything you have said in this message. It reflects very well the teaching of the Church:
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 86 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/86.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

I agree with everything you have said in this message. It reflects very well the teaching of the Church:
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 86 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/86.htm)


Then you should be able to show me where scripture says that man becomes God (CCC Article 460)

This makes no sense. One should not preach a doctrine which is not clearly taught in scripture.

1. You just shot down Sola Scriptura.
2. And you just contradicted your previous message, you said:

I am sure that you know that the words are descriptive of the doctrine and need not exist in the text (i.e trinity).


Preaching something does not make it true. BTW, Maccabees is not only not canonical, but the author does not claim inspiration, but rather attributes it to himself alone. Maccabees was added at the council of Trent - but of course you even reject the New Catholic Encyclopedia when it disagrees with you.

The Septuagint version of the Old Testament existed before Christ. It includes the Deuterocanonicals, which include the Maccabean books.


It seems that you are trying to introduce yet another topic (and false doctrine) to further obfuscate the issue at hand.

Read the thread again. You accused the Church of adding 7 books (message #228). And Nohelp4u reintroduced purgatory into this thread (message #201).


You are having a hard enough time defending what you believe without trying to thoroughly mis-represent what I believe.

Wouldn't it be a better idea, instead of saying that I misrepresent what you say, showing where the misrepresentation is to be found.

After all, you said I misrepresented Sola Scriptura. But the definition you produced is virtually identical to the one I produced.


Then it is not your denomination. The first denomination was the Roman Catholic Church created in 325AD as I already proved (but you continue to deny because it does not agree with you)

No, any reasonable person reviewing that exchange will see that you read into the document what you wanted to get out of it. The document does not say that St. Constantine created the Church. And that is what you claimed.


I'd be happy to prove otherwise, using quotes directly out of Catholic writings. Prayer, BTW is a form of worship, and you will find no prayers to anyone but God endorsed in scripture.

The word "prayer", like almost every word in the dictionary, has more than one meaning.

To a Catholic, prayer to the Saints is not worship but request. And we find requests of the Saints throughout the Scriptures:

Luke 16 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

Luke 14 18 And they began all at once to make excuse. The first said to him: I have bought a farm, and I must needs go out and see it: I pray thee, hold me excused.

Acts Of Apostles 27 34 Wherefore I pray you to take some meat for your health's sake; for there shall not an hair of the head of any of you perish.

Ephesians 3 13 Wherefore I pray you not to faint at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

Therefore, we pray to the Saints to request their intercession before God.


Then you did not read what I posted.

Yes, I did.


BTW, the Roman Catholic church is described, not in the passage you quoted, but Rev 17:1-6.

1 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters, 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the whine of her whoredom. 3 And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration.

No, actually, the Whore of Babylon is not the Catholic Church. . You are most definitely reading that into Scripture. It is in fact, Jerusalem. Let me show you.

Babylon described as a whore:

Revelation 17 1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Israel is described as a whore:

Hosea 9 1Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God,
Thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.

Jerusalem described as a harlot (which is another word for whore):

Isaiah 1 21How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

Ezekiel 16 1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, ….15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Babylon is clothed in finery:

Rev 17 4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Jerusalem clothed in finery:

Ez 16 10I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD. 15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Babylon kills the prophets and saints:

Rev 17 6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs
Of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Jerusalem kills the prophets and saints:

Matthew 23 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Babylon is described as "that great city":

Rev 17: 18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


Rev 18: 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour is thy judgment come.

The "great city" is the city in which Jesus was crucified:

Rev 11: 8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. . The Kings of the earth gathered in Jerusalem to crucify Christ.

Rev 17: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication

Acts 4: 26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Babylon and Jerusalem are built on seven mountains:

Revelation 17: 9And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings:

Jerusalem is built on seven mountains: Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah.

Babylon is destroyed by fire:

Rev 18: 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire

Jerusalem is destroyed by fire:

Ez 23: 25And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.


God calls His people out of that city:

Rev 18: 4And 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.

Paul calls people out of Jerusalem:

Heb 13: 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

The harlot, Jerusalem is redeemed:

Isaiah 2 1The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Revelation 21: 10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

All of that is directly from Scripture. . Try as I might, I couldn't find any reference to Rome as a whore or harlot in Scripture. Try as I might I could find no reference to the Catholic Church as a whore or a harlot in Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

1. You just shot down Sola Scriptura.
2. And you just contradicted your previous message, you said:

-----
NO you are not following his points

Sola scriptura is not ones personal interpretation it is taking a doctrine and backing it WITH scripture IF it can not be backed with scripture then it is false teaching.
Sola scriptura goes by the word not being left to personal interpretation.
I do not understand where you get that it does.

Then you should be able to show me where scripture says that man becomes God (CCC Article 460)

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

John 10 34 Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said you are gods? 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;

1 Corinthians 12 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member.

John 1 12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't understand why OR HOW you manage to twist things I never said sola scriptura contradicts the Bible!

HOW can the Bible contradict the Bible!!????

The man made doctrine called Sola Scriptura contradicts the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria

1. You just shot down Sola Scriptura.
2. And you just contradicted your previous message, you said:

-----
NO you are not following his points

Sola scriptura is not ones personal interpretation it is taking a doctrine and backing it WITH scripture IF it can not be backed with scripture then it is false teaching.

Not so. Sola Scriptura says that doctrine is backed by Scriptura ALONE.

The Church agrees that if a doctrine is not backed by Scripture, it is false. That is why Sola Scriptura is false.

However, many people can twist Scripture to their own desires. Scripture is clear that this is possible. Therefore the Church requires that doctrine must ALSO be backed by Tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.


Sola scriptura goes by the word not being left to personal interpretation.
I do not understand where you get that it does.

Very simple. It is you and TJ who tell Catholics to disregard the Church. Why?

Because you believe YOUR personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to Church interpretation.

Yet the Bible calls the Church the Pillar of Truth. So how can your interpretation trump Church interpretation?

And that means that you put your interpretation of Scripture even ABOVE Scripture itself.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I found this somewhere --lost the link

According to Phillips, the quotation from Psalm 82:6 agrees
exactly with the Septuagint (81:6) and the Masoretic text.
God's representatives were called "gods. " Additionally, not
only did God call men elohiym but also they were called "sons of
God," a term that emerged later. These humans were those who
should have administered justice according to the Law of God,
and thus represent God's will to the people. It is from that
historical situation that Jesus derived the principle that
divine commissioning permits individuals to bear the divine
title.

John 10:36 then reveals the crux of the argument, and at the
same time the crux of our interpretive dispute; Jesus draws
attention to the work of the Father on His behalf - the Father
sanctified Him and sent Him.

In light of biblical precedent (vv. 34-35) and the work of the
Father on His behalf, Jesus asked, "How can you accuse Me of
blasphemy when I, too, claim the divine title rightfully?" From
what I have read, the words, huios ton theon eimi, have elicited
a far amount of controversy. As I am sure Andre will gleefully
point out, "son" is without the definite article, and working
from that base he will content that Jesus was clarifying the
fact that He was not God and that He never claimed to be equal
with the Father. There are others, however, who attack it from
a different vantage by maintaining that Jesus was merely
silencing His opposition, attacking them through clever
sophistry. "The argument is admittedly ad hominem and indeed is
little better than a play on words, for Jesus claims to be the
'Son of God' in a very different sense." (MacGregor, The Gospel
of John)

if X is
true, then how much more must Y be true.
The only remaining conclusion is that Jesus spoke the truth, and
that He was "one with the Father." His appeal to Scripture is a
bit of a fortiori argument.


According to this view Jesus is repeatedly being misunderstood.
He was a rabbi whose teachings were so novel that their very
uniqueness undermined accurate preservation, particularly as His
words were filtered through the Jewish theology of first and
second century disciples. However, glimpses of Jesus, who
occasionally tried to "set the record straight," have been
preserved (as in the present passage). His words might be
paraphrased as follows:

Does not even your Scripture, which you regard as absolutely
truthful, call human beings "gods"? Then why do you get so
upset and accuse me of blasphemy when I only claim to be "a son"
of God?


Also remember gods is little g and what does the Bible say about the gods of this world?

Tj3,
We become one with God the Son though partaking of the holy Eucharist.
Here also I'll give you Cody's answer to that on para 460 of the CCC.
"This part of the Catechism does not mean that we become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. But the best and simplest explanation that I can give for this is that to "become God" and be "sharers in [Christ's] divinity" refers to the fact that the individual members of Christ's church make up his body, and thus him.

Remember the words of Jesus to Saul in Acts 9:1-5.

'Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."'

Notice that although Saul was persecuting the followers of Christ, Jesus said he was persecuting HIM.

Furthermore, CCC 460 also refers to our goal of holiness. Here is the full text of 2 Peter 1:4.

"Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire."

So, by becoming free from sin and of the evils in the world, we share in the divine nature. That is, by becoming so holy we become like God and, in a certain sense, become God.

I hope this answered your questions.

With many prayers,
-Cody"

The Church agrees that if a doctrine is not backed by Scripture, it is false. That is why Sola Scriptura is false.

However, many people can twist Scripture to their own desires. Scripture is clear that this is possible. Therefore the Church requires that doctrine must ALSO be backed by Tradition.

As I am saying sola scriptura is not intended for personal interpretation for people to twist.
As I am saying WHAT tradition? Is it backed with scripture?
As I am saying Purgatory doctrine is not backed by scripture but tradition alone.

The Church agrees that if a doctrine is not backed by Scripture, it is false. That is why Sola Scriptura is false.

However, many people can twist Scripture to their own desires. Scripture is clear that this is possible. Therefore the Church requires that doctrine must ALSO be backed by Tradition.

As I am saying sola scriptura is not intended for personal interpretation for people to twist.
As I am saying WHAT tradition? Is it backed with scripture?
As I am saying Purgatory doctrine is not backed by scripture but tradition alone.

Sola Scriptura denies a role for Tradition.

But Scripture doesn't. Scripture says:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

1. You just shot down Sola Scriptura.
2. And you just contradicted your previous message, you said:

I don't know what you are reading into that, but once again perhaps you do not understand what sola scriptura is. To date you have mis-represented it several times.


The Septuagint version of the Old Testament existed before Christ. It includes the Deuterocanonicals, which include the Maccabean books.

We've been through this. Many different Bibles include non-canonical reference material. And the New Catholic Encyclopedia (among other sources) agree with me. Deny if you wishg - it will not change reality.


Read the thread again. You accused the Church of adding 7 books (message #228). And Nohelp4u reintroduced purgatory into this thread (message #201).

I accused the church of nothing. I accused your denomination of adding to the Bible. You started the topic of prayer to the dead.


After all, you said I misrepresented Sola Scriptura. But the definition you produced is virtually identical to the one I produced.

I have shown you many times. One can explain these things a hundred times, but unless the recipient reads what is posted, we are no further ahead.


To a Catholic, prayer to the Saints is not worship but request. And we find requests of the Saints throughout the Scriptures:

Request is not a prayer, unless that is to a dead person, in which case scripture specifically calls it an abomination.


Try as I might, I couldn't find any reference to Rome as a whore or harlot in Scripture. Try as I might I could find no reference to the Catholic Church as a whore or a harlot in Scripture.

I provided it in my last message, but perhaps you again did not read what I posted.

Tj3,
We become one with God the Son though partaking of the holy Eucharist.

Communion is symbolic. When I was saved, I was indwelled by the Holy Spirit but that did not make me God.

... some deleted for brevity...


So, by becoming free from sin and of the evils in the world, we share in the divine nature. That is, by becoming so holy we become like God and, in a certain sense, become God.

I don't know who Cody is and it does not matter. I go by what scripture says. Further, Article 460 specifically says that we become God, which is blasphemous. Let me quote it:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

It is very specific and clear it what it says. Saying that it does not mean what it clearly says does not address the questions.

NoHelp4U
Purgatory is NOT backed by tradition alone.
There are many Bib;e verses that support the believe in Purgatory.
Here they are, Check then out.
Lk 12:59; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; Mt 5:25-26... temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11... God's painful discipline.
Mt 12:32... no forgiveness... nor in the age to come.
1 Pet 3:19... purgatory (limbo?).
Rev 21:27... nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23... souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:14... "extra" suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46... sacrifice for the dead.
2 Tim 1:15-18... prayer for Onesiphorus for "that Day."
1 Jn 5:14-17... mortal/venial sins
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

NoHelp4U
Purgatory is NOT backed by tradition alone.
There are many Bib;e verses that support the believe in Purgatory.
Here they are, Check then out.
Lk 12:59; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; Mt 5:25-26 ... temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11 ... God's painful discipline.
Mt 12:32 ... no forgiveness ... nor in the age to come.
1 Pet 3:19 ... purgatory (limbo?).
Rev 21:27 ... nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23 ... souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:14 ... "extra" suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46 ... sacrifice for the dead.
2 Tim 1:15-18 ... prayer for Onesiphorus for "that Day."
1 Jn 5:14-17 ... mortal/venial sins
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Fred,

I see that you are back to copying off the "Catholic Cheatsheet" on internet :D .
Perhaps it would be best to give credit when you copy and paste someone else's work.

We have been through every one of these, as you know and none of these refer to purgatory. If you want to start another thread, we can examine every one of these in context once again.

Tj3,
The Eucharist is NOT symbolic.
The bible clearly teaches other than what YOU believe about that.
No where does the bible or Jesus say that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood.
You can twist Scripture all you want to to TRY to change that but you will not successfully do so.

Tj3,
My, my my, does providing information from sources that show what you believe to be wrong unset you that much
That Scripture information has been posted many years for anyone who wants to use it.
It is truth and I will continue to provide it whether you like it or not.
Fred

Sola Scriptura denies a role for Tradition.

But Scripture doesn't. Scripture says:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

If sola scriptura denies the role of tradition then what does sola scriptura do when it comes to the traditions verses IN scripture??

Can you show me a copy of the sola scriptura where it specifically says that exactly?

OH and you haven't explained the verses that I used to speaks against traditions

Tj3,
The Eucharist is NOT symbolic.
The bible clearly teaches other than what YOU believe about that.
No where does the bible or Jesus say that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood.
You can twist Scripture all you want to to TRY to change that but you will not successfully do so.

Fred,

I note that you give no reference and if one wishes to make such a claim as you have made, the onus is one you to back it up. We have certainly dealt with John 6 and shown how those who thought that he referred to actual blood and flesh were those who betrayed him.

Let's also look at this passage:

Mark 14:22-26
22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
NKJV

First, note that Jesus was still with them. They were not chewing on His physical body. Second, for him to ask them to eat Him physical would be to call for cannibalism. THird, He is clear that He is referring to drinking of the fruit of the vine - wine - not blood, thus the symbolism.

Tj3,
My, my my, does providing information from sources that show what you believe to be wrong unset you that much
That Scripture information has been posted many years for anyone who wants to use it.
It is truth and I will continue to provide it whether you like it or not.
Fred

Fred,

If you can find information that shows me to be wrong, I will be quite pleased.

But please take the time to check it out first rather than just copying and pasting from something someone posted on internet. Whoever created this site did a poor job of researching the references.

Just in case you forget, I do know the site:

Christopher Wong (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WALLET.HTM)

Tom

Tj3,
I have many time provided much scripture passages that prove that the Eucharist is NOT symbolic. The Gospels provide many of Jesus words and statement that show as I mentioned above that Jesus said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
On the other hand you have not and can not provide any bible passage that says that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Fred

Tj3,
I have many time provided much scripture passages that prove that the Eucharist is NOT symbolic. The Gospels provide many of Jesus words and statement that show as I mentioned above that Jesus said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
On the other hand you have not and can not provide any bible passage that says that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Fred

No, Fred, you have claimed that it is, but have yet to show any scriptural backup.

With all due respect, I do not accept your word above scripture.

You have apparently failed to read my last post (270)

Tj3,
Over the years I have provided those Scripture passages and you KNOW very well that I have so DO NOT say that I haven't. In so doing you are once again making false statements.
Just for you I will provide some other then again.
Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25... this is my body... this is my blood.
1 Cor 11:26-30... sinning against the body and blood.
Jn 6:32-58... long discourse on Eucharist.
Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17... Melchizedek.
Acts 2:42... breaking of bread.
Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16... symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.

tj3,
Over the years I have provided those Scripture passages and you KNOW very well that I have so DO NOT say that I haven't. In so doing you are once again making false statements.
Just for you I will provide some other then again.
Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 ... this is my body ... this is my blood.
1 Cor 11:26-30 ... sinning against the body and blood.
Jn 6:32-58 ... long discourse on Eucharist.
Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17 ... Melchizedek.
Acts 2:42 ... breaking of bread.
Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16 ... symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.

I did not say that you did not copy and paste statements from that website. I said that you have not shown any scriptural backup to validate your claim. Just repeating the same old same old which has been refuted many times is not validation. No matter how many times you copy and paste from that website, Fred, the references do not get any more accurate.

Tj3.
I have that list of passages long before they were ever on any web site.
I and others used them when teaching bible class many years ago and they are still very useful in exposing false or erroneous teaching.
I notice that you like to cut and paste bible scripture passages why it is OK t for you to cut and past things like the quotes you have posted here to day but it is not OK for others to d that?
What males you a privilege character here, Tom.
Do you thing that you are better than everyone else?
Of not then please try to be fair with others.
Thanks,'
Fred

I don't know what you are reading into that, but once again perhaps you do not understand what sola scriptura is. To date you have mis-represented it several times.

You keep saying that but the definition you presented is very close to the one I presented which is actually Luther's.

In addition, your definition of Sola Scriptura is a doctrine which says that every doctrine must be supported by the standard of Scripture alone.

Yet, your doctrine fails its own standard. Because Sola Scriptura as Scripture is the sole standard of doctrine, can't be found in Scripture.


We've been through this. Many different Bibles include non-canonical reference material. And the New Catholic Encyclopedia (among other sources) agree with me. Deny if you wishg - it will not change reality.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes the Deuterocanonicals. But it is true many Protestant Bibles still keep the Deuterocanonicals in a section they call Apocrypha. This is further proof that

1. the ancient Christian Bible included the Deuterocanonicals but Luther took them out.
2. and that Trent did not add them, but confirmed them in Scripture.


I accused the church of nothing. I accused your denomination of adding to the Bible. You started the topic of prayer to the dead.

Really? Show me. Because I believe my mention of prayer TO THE SAINTS was in response to someone calling it SAINT WORSHIP. In fact, I thought it was YOU (Message #245).


I have shown you many times. One can explain these things a hundred times, but unless the recipient reads what is posted, we are no further ahead.

The feeling is mutual.


Request is not a prayer, unless that is to a dead person, in which case scripture specifically calls it an abomination.

No. Scripture calls divination an abomination.

Since Christians who die in Christ are alive in Christ, prayer to Saints is request.

Hebrews 12 1 And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us:


I provided it in my last message, but perhaps you again did not read what I posted.

Lets go over it again.

Rev 17:1-6

1 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters, 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the whine of her whoredom. 3 And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration.

Will you look at that. No mention whatsoever of Rome, nor of the Church AT ALL. As usual, you are reading that into Scripture.

This is why your doctrine of Scripture alone is a false doctrine. It is precisely the methodology you used to impose your prejudices against the Catholic Church into Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3.
I have that list of passages long before they were ever on any web site.
I and others used them when teaching bible class many years ago and they are still very useful in exposing false or erroneous teaching.


I use them in showing how people take scripture out of context to support false doctrine..


I notice that you like to cut and paste bible scripture passages why it is OK t for you to cut and past things like the quotes you have posted here to day but it is not OK for others to d that?

It is okay for anyone. But I think that before anyone does so, if they want their input to add value to a discussion, they should first check out what they are posting - in context - rather than just blindly copying and pasting something somebody posted on a website or something that their denomination said that they are to believe.


What males you a privilege character here, Tom.
Do you thing that you are better than everyone else?
Of not then please try to be fair with others.
Thanks,'
Fred

I note that whenever you cannot deal with the issue, you go after the person.

You keep saying that but the definition you presented is very close to the one I presented which is actually Luther's.

Actually your definition varies significantly, but for some reason you won't acknowledge that fact.


Yet, your doctrine fails its own standard. Because Sola Scriptura as Scripture is the sole standard of doctrine, can't be found in Scripture.

Sigh! You keep making that false claim.


The New Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes the Deuterocanonicals.

Yes they do, and they recognize that the Roman catholic denomination did not do so until the Council of Trent.


Really? Show me. Because I believe my mention of prayer TO THE SAINTS was in response to someone calling it SAINT WORSHIP. In fact, I thought it was YOU (Message #245).

Here is one example from a book endorsed by the Roman Church and written by a doctor of the Roman Church - from the book "The Glories of Mary"

"The holy Church commands a worship peculiar to Mary"


No. Scripture calls divination an abomination.

Maybe you are not aware of what necromancy is.


Since Christians who die in Christ are alive in Christ, prayer to Saints is request.

This old one :D . Necrmancy refers to those dead in the flesh. Look at 1 Samuel 28 to see how God feels about talking to dead saints.

Better yet, why don't you show us where speaking to dead saints is endorsed in scripture!


Will you look at that. No mention whatsoever of Rome, nor of the Church AT ALL. As usual, you are reading that into Scripture.

So where is the city on seven hills?

Since Christians who die in Christ are alive in Christ, prayer to Saints is request.

Die to Christ means to give up your old ways and follow Christ it has NOTHING to do with physical death.

The Bible forbids praying to or through anybody but Jesus
That is where De Marie misunderstands by saying it is no different than asking a friend to pray for you
A. Communicating with people that have passed on is forbidden
B. When you ask Mary to intercede it is through a 'prayer' NOT an 'hey Mary will you pray for me?'

The Scriptures say that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that if we don't hear the Church (Matt 18:17) we should be treated as heathen.

Yet some people say we should neglect the Church and listen to Scripture alone?

Why, if doing so is to disobey Scripture?
There is a commandment: "Honor the Sabboth Day to keep it holy". Church is our fellowship, gathering, and strengthing of our Christian walk through Scripture reading etc... Going to church is part of being a Christian and sharing in the body of Christ. Faith is not a personal thing, but something to be shared (taught and learned). A verb not a noun. Therfore requires action, and church is one of those actions. Sola Scriptura does not mean not to go to church.

The Bible forbids praying to or through anybody but Jesus
I believe otherwise... and my belief is founded upon MY INTERPRETATION of Scripture... so who decides what is the truth?

I can quote verse after verse from Scripture to "prove" that prayers to saints are certainly supported by the Bible... for instance:

MT 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 32 `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (St. Luke's Gospel 20:38 adds "for to him all are alive" or "for all live unto him")

... but as always, the Bible alone shows that it is not FORMALLY SUFFICIENT to determine orthodoxy... all we can do is go back and forth with Bible quotes without ever settling the matter.

And this brings me back to the reason I left the Protestant faith and joined the Catholic Church... I just couldn't believe in a faith that believes God would establish a Covenant with all mankind through His Son's precious Blood, and then put mankind in a situation where they could never agree as to what this God really requires of them..?

Okay would like to hear them can you start a new post with them?

okay would like to hear them can you start a new post with them?
I think you missed the point-------> why bother?

All we can do is go back and forth with Bible quotes without ever settling the matter... if you are just curious to learn the Catholic teaching on this, I'd be happy to provide them... but I'm wondering what would be the point otherwise?

Its up to you because I really don't like arguing verses back and forth for the most part but I do like to learn what others believe so you are right it will just be discussion for the most part.

Its up to you because I really don't like arguing verses back and forth for the most part but I do like to learn what others believe so you are right it will just be discussion for the most part.
Done.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/praying-saints-243086.html

I believe otherwise... and my belief is founded upon MY INTERPRETATION of Scripture... so who decides what is the truth?

Scripture says that NO MAN can interpret the Bible.

2 Peter 1:20
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
NKJV

We are therefore to allow scripture to interpret itself.


I can quote verse after verse from Scripture to "prove" that prayers to saints are certainly supported by the Bible... for instance:

MT 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 32 `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (St. Luke's Gospel 20:38 adds "for to him all are alive" or "for all live unto him")

This refers to those who are alive in Christ but does not permit nor even mention prayers to the dead. The prohibition against communication with the dead in Deuteronomy uses a word which refers to those dead in the flesh. Read 1 Samuel 28 if you want to see God's response to communicating with a dead saint.


... but as always, the Bible alone shows that it is not FORMALLY SUFFICIENT to determine orthodoxy... all we can do is go back and forth with Bible quotes without ever settling the matter.

Are you saying that there is no right interpretation? I contend that there is but men keep trying to force their interpretations and opinion on what the Bible says, instead of submitting themselves to what it says.


And this brings me back to the reason I left the Protestant faith and joined the Catholic Church... I just couldn't believe in a faith that believes God would establish a Covenant with all mankind through His Son's precious Blood, and then put mankind in a situation where they could never agree as to what this God really requires of them..?

I am neither protestant nor Catholic, but to me it makes no sense to say that you are going to leave one denomination for a denomination which insists that its own manmade interpretation of the Bible is right and adds to the Bible because men are forcing their own interpretations on the Bible. Why not just submit yourself to the Bible instead of submit yourself to another interpretation of men?

Scripture says that NO MAN can interpret the Bible.
----------------------
We are therefore to allow scripture to interpret itself.
Huh?

Where do we play into this?

Does the Bible give us a hint after it interprets inself?

This refers to those who are alive in Christ but does not permit...
Okey dokey.

Are you saying that there is no right interpretation? I contend that there is but men keep trying to force their interpretations and opinion on what the Bible says, instead of submitting themselves to what it says.
No... I know that there is... I'm just wondering how YOU would determine what the Bible says since you've already stated you are not allowed to interpret it.

Why not just submit yourself to the Bible instead of submit yourself to another interpretation of men?
Wouldn't my personal interpretation be yet another interpretation of "man"?

With respect, your post does not make much sense... I'm not allowed to interpret scripture for myself, but yet you insist that I should submit myself to my personal interpretation??

Who's on first? :) God bless you for your answers.

Does the Bible give us a hint after it interprets inself?

Personally I don't think that the word of God is a joking matter - but to each his own.


No... I know that there is... I'm just wondering how YOU would determine what the Bible says since you've already stated you are not allowed to interpret it.

We allow the Bible to speak to us, interpret itself.


Wouldn't my personal interpretation be yet another interpretation of "man"?

It would indeed.


With respect, your post does not make much sense... I'm not allowed to interpret scripture for myself, but yet you insist that I should submit myself to my personal interpretation??

How you managed to twist and mis-represent what I said into that is beyond me.

Maybe you can tell us why you would submit yourself to another man's interpretation (i.e. your church)?

BTW, do you reject what the word of God says about prohibiting private interpretation? If so, by what authority do you judge God's word to be in error?

Deut 12:8
8 You shall not at all do as we are doing here today--every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes.
NKJV

With respect, your post does not make much sense... I'm not allowed to interpret scripture for myself, but yet you insist that I should submit myself to my personal interpretation??

Once again we have said repeatedly it is not up to personal interpretation, nobody is saying it should be personal interpretation but that a churches doctrine/tradition should be backed by the scripture. I think I have said that about 12 - 15 times in this post.

We allow the Bible to speak to us, interpret itself.
Biblical relativism is no joking matter to me... but to each his/her own.

Maybe you can tell us why you would submit yourself to another man's interpretation (i.e. your church)?
Seemed to work for those who followed the Apostles... I figure that's good enough for me, but your results may vary.

BTW, do you reject what the word of God says about prohibiting private interpretation?
I don't reject it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again we have said repeatedly it is not up to personal interpretation, nobody is saying it should be personal interpretation but that a churches doctrine/tradition should be backed by the scripture. I think I have said that about 12 - 15 times in this post.
You can say it a million more times... but it does not answer my questions.

Who decides that a churches doctrine/tradition is "backed by the scripture"?

The Catholic Church claims that all of her doctrines and traditions can be "backed" by scripture... that you don't agree with their interpretations is not the point... I still want to know by what authority do you determine what is and what is not "backed by the scripture"?

The denomination
Like Luther, Protestant, assemblies of God and trusted theologian scholars etc...

What I am saying is NO you can't just decide to interpret the Bible yourself to your own satisfaction and not back it up with nothing but what you want to get out of it to fit your own
Agenda like De Marie seems to think we mean.
We are not saying Tom can interpret to his liking or I can to mine.

The denomination
Like Luther, Protestant, assemblies of God and trusted theologian scholars etc...
So each one can determine for themselves what the truth is?

Wouldn't that mean that one is right and all the others are wrong?

That does not sound like something God intended: hardly the "pillar" of truth if you are a member of one of the hundreds/thousands of denominations that are wrong.

We are not saying Tom can interpret to his liking or I can to mine.
I understand that... and thank you for trying to explain... but I'm not making that argument... I'm just trying to establish by what means do non-Catholic Christian groups determine orthodox teaching/doctrine.

Maybe none have it all right but we have to go with the conviction in our heart what we believe to be right. Just like the atheist can not see how believers have faith and you can not understand how we believe as we do and vice a versa we have to be convicted and convinced fully in our hearts and then it is up to God.

Maybe none have it all right but we have to go with the conviction in our heart what we believe to be right.
I can't argue with that my friend...

I'm just wondering why this does not apply to me and my Church..?

:)

I understand that ... and thank you for trying to explain... but I'm not making that argument... I'm just trying to establish by what means do non-Catholic Christian groups determine orthodox teaching/doctrine.

Have we not said it enough times?

You are free to believe your church but my question is where in the Bible does it back up Purgatory and other doctrines?

You are free to believe your church but my question is where in the Bible does it back up Purgatory and other doctrines?

Yep! No church has the right to say that their doctrinal teaching is beyond testing by the measure of scripture.

Even the Apostle Paul encouraged men to go to scriptures to see if what he said was true.

Acts 17:10-11
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 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.
NKJV

Yeah look at some of the New Testament Churches they were far from perfect like Galatians and Corinthians

You are free to believe your church but my question is where in the Bible does it back up Purgatory and other doctrines?
*sigh*

I hate this game you folks like to play.

A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness (Purgatory)
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.

Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven).

Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.

Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.

Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.

Now you'll tell me: "NO! You're wrong!----- I'm RIGHT"

I can almost see what you are saying. It is more clear than the way De Marie tries to explain things. I asked De Marie at least three times if purgatory is before or after the judgment of the believers she never did reply.
SOME of the verses you quoted I always understood as being before you die and not sure I see them as meaning after you die. The ones that seem to say after you die I will have to check them more. Also I do believe there was a waiting place (possibly called Purgatory) before Jesus' death but I can see no reason for it since Jesus death since the Bible says that he was the final sacrifice and propitiation for our sins. It seems to me that if you need more than his reconciling us by his death then his death was less meaningful.

Why does the Bible say that as soon as you ask God to forgive your sins he casts them as far as the East is from the West and forgets them and other verses like that?

Why do all those verses say that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient?

Why do all those verses say that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient?

That's only because God chose to take all sins from those who are not Catholic. :D

NoHelp4U
Purgatory is for those who have passed this life but not fully in the grace of God.
Their sinful nature needs to be purged; refined away so that their soul is pure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
You might think an inaccuracy such as that is funny, but the what might happen to a person soul is not funny.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

NoHelp4U
Purgatory is for those who have passed this life but not fully in the grace of God.
Their sinful nature needs to be purged; refined away so that their soul is pure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

In scripture, everyone either has all their unrighteousness taken away,

1 John 1:9-10
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
NKJV

Or they are on their way to hell:

John 3:18-21
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
NKJV

There is no middle ground.

Tj3,
You might think an inaccuracy such as that is funny, but the what might happen to a person soul is not funny.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Thus my concerns that people hear the gospel, and not think that there is hope after death whereby they can pay for their own sins.

Scripture is still the source and norm of all doctrine.

You are basing your belief that the church has equal authority as God's Word by writing:
"The Scriptures say that the Church...." thereby recognizing the authority of scripture.

The phrase, "house of God" refers to a building, the temple as it is used in the OT and by Jesus.

"The church" in the NT, however, is not defined as a corporate group, but usually as local gatherings of Christians. Since they are one in faith, they are also generalized as the body of Christ.
It is not only the RCC that errs in acting like the corporate group (rulers, bishops, pastors, etc) are equal to the Word of God, but also many Christians denominations slip into this arrogant mode.

The "church" is the gathering and it INCLUDES prophets and teachers, but they are called the "church"

Acts 13:1
13:1 In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers:
NIV

Acts 15:30-31

30 The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.
NIV

Rom 16:5-6
5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.
NIV

The church is always the body of Christ with only one head. And He is "the Word become flesh"... but still "the Word"

Col 1:17-18
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church ; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
NIV

Here Jesus says that the "truth" which is spoken of in I Tim. 3:15 is the word of God, which is what we mean when we speak of Scripture.
John 17:15-17

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
NIV

The churches can proclaim God's Word, they can rightly interpret it and apply it... but they cannot add or subtract from it without doing harm to the people of God.

I can almost see what you are saying. It is more clear than the way De Marie tries to explain things.
I appreciate you saying that... I don't expect you to agree that I'm correct in my interpretation, but I would hope that you come to understand that we believe it is truly a BIBLICAL doctrine.

I asked De Marie at least three times if purgatory is before or after the judgment of the believers she never did reply.
After.

Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation. (CCC 1022)

It seems to me that if you need more than his reconciling us by his death then his death was less meaningful.
I can understand that... but be sure that we don't doubt the sufficiency of Christ's death on the Cross for us... it is just that we don't believe this has made us "magically" perfect... we are still sinners and still continue to sin... we still have all our human bad habits etc etc... and I don't believe that we can stand before God unless we are PURE. Nothing can come before God --- no one will see His face that is not perfected in love... and since many of us die without this perfection:

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.(1030)

So again... the sacrifce on Calvary WAS sufficient to open the doors to heaven, but we still have to do our part... we have to respond to the grace God gives us to become partakers in the divine nature.

I can understand that... but be sure that we don't doubt the sufficiency of Christ's death on the Cross for us... it is just that we don't believe this has made us "magically" perfect... we are still sinners and still continue to sin.... we still have all our human bad habits etc etc.... and I don't believe that we can stand before God unless we are PURE.

No we are not perfected now, but no matter what sins those who are saved commit or have committed, they are cleansed by the blood on the cross (1 John 1:9 and others), therefore there is nothing that we can do to improve upon what God Himself already did.

Further, to pay the price for sin required a perfect sinless man - and since none of us meet the qualifications, we cannot pay the price for any sin.

Yeah I agree we go through the fire for works and perfected but not sin and
that fire is the judgment day of the believers not the purgatory.
I still do not understand why God would make sure that the first and second resurrection, the judgments of the wicked, the nations, the believers, etc... and the crowns would all be explained yet no out right mention of purgatory. Why?

Tj3.
Your are selecting scripture to say what you want it to say and ignoring other passages.
Purgatory is real as scripture indicates as has been provided here.
Please be careful.
The day will come that you will know that personally.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3.
Your are selecting scripture to say what you want it to say and ignoring other passages.
Purgatory is real as scripture indicates as has been provided here.
Please be careful.
The day will come that you will know that personally.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

If it is in scripture, Fred, then all you would need to do is to show us the scripture rather than simply telling everyone who has read scripture that they are wrong.

I still do not understand why God would make sure that the first and second resurrection, the judgments of the wicked, the nations, the believers, etc......and the crowns would all be explained yet no out right mention of purgatory. Why?
I don't believe there needed to be a "out right mention" of it... since I don't believe all God left us was a book... I believe that even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries... like the teachings of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the Theotokos, and purgatory.

But I would like to point out that while I do believe this teaching is true, I don't believe it affects our salvation... what I mean is, that belief or lack of belief of purgatory does not affect your relationship with Christ so it's just fine if we agree to disagree.:D

Then why did he or would he find it significant to include the judgments and other things but feel that purgatory was insignificant to explain?

Belief or lack of belief of purgatory does not affect your relationship with Christ
I can agree with that -basically

I don't believe there needed to be a "out right mention" of it.... since I don't believe all God left us was a book.....I believe that even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.... like the teachings of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the Theotokos, and purgatory.

But I would like to point out that while I do believe this teaching is true, I don't believe it affects our salvation... what I mean is, that belief or lack of belief of purgatory does not affect your relationship with Christ so it's just fine if we agree to disagree.:D

Then you do not believe a teaching that would make us believe Christ was unworthy of washing us clean of all sin, might also not provoke God to anger? My belief is in scripture that does indeed say different. The Word of Truth offer to you.

Hebrews 10:9-10 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
This is Truth..

Hebrews 10: 20-22 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And [having] an high priest over the house of God;Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

This is Truth!

Hebrews 10: 26-27 For ]if we sin wilfully [/B]after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

This is truth!!

Hebrews 10:29-30 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, [B]The Lord shall judge his people.

Then why did he or would he find it significant to include the judgments and other things but feel that purgatory was insignificant to explain?
You assume that purgatory is not clearly in scripture... I obviously disagree... but (yet again) we always come back to how to settle this using scripture alone, and I think this shows it is not possible.

Catholics have both scripture AND the teachings of the early church (which as you see are based upon the Bible):


Comments by Jacques Le Goff, author of The Birth of Purgatory [University of Chicago Press, 1984] Excerpts from chapter 2 "The Fathers of Purgatory"

From the Old Testament, Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen took the notion that fire is a divine instrument, and from the New Testament the idea of baptism by fire (from the Gospels) and the idea of a purificatory trial after death (from Paul). The notion of fire as a divine instrument comes from commonly cited interpretations of Old Testament passages [ e.g. Lev 10:1-2; Deut 32:22; Jer 15:14; cf. Luke 3:16].... (page 53)

Origen's conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement's. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh....Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin).... (page 54,55)

For Clement of Alexandria, the 'intelligent' fire that enters into the sinner's soul was not a material thing...but neither was it a mere metaphor: it was a 'spiritual' fire (Stromata 7:6 and 5:14)....what is involved [in Origen's view] is a purificatory fire, which, though immaterial, is not merely a metaphor: it is real but spiritual, subtle....Origen's eschatological notions were highly personal...He believed that the souls of the righteous would pass through the fire of judgment in an instant and would reach Paradise on the eighth day after Judgment Day.... (page 55,56)

Thus, if Origen glimpsed the future Purgatory, still his idea of Purgatory was so overshadowed by his eschatology and his idea of Hell as a temporary abode that ultimately it vanishes from view. Nevertheless, it was Origen who clearly stated for the first time the idea that the soul can be purified in the other world after death. For the first time a distinction was drawn between mortal and lesser sins. We even see three categories beginning to take shape: the righteous, who pass through the fire of judgment and go directly to heaven; those guilty of the lesser sins only, who sojourn in the 'fire of combustion' is brief; and 'mortal sinners,' who remain in the flames for an extended period. Origen actually develops the metaphor introduced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.... (page 56,57)

In this period [of the fourth century] Christian thought concerning the fate of the soul after death was based mainly on the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:9) and on a passage from Paul (1 Cor 3:10-15), and less frequently on Tertullian's idea of refrigerium and Origen's concept of a purifying fire....Lactantius (d. after 317) believed that all who died, including the righteous, would be tried by fire, but not until the Last Judgment [cites Instit 7:21 Migne PL 6:800]...Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 419/420), and the unidentified writer known as Ambrosiaster, who lived in the second half of the fourth century, all had ideas on the fate of the soul after death that make them heirs of Origen. (page 58,59)

And I can provide you with quote upon quote from the Church Fathers on prayers for the dead, purgatory, and the development of the doctrine... all BEFORE Constantine and Nicea.

To me, it is as "Christian" a belief as the Canon of Scripture or the Trinity... these "extra-Biblical" teachings happen to play a large role in our faith.

belief or lack of belief of purgatory does not affect your relationship with Christ
I can agree with that -basically
Cool.:D

passage from Paul (1 Cor 3:10-15) is about the judgment of believers where works are purged not sin and then you are given crown(s) according to your works.

Tj3,
How many times must I post the Scripture that indicates the reality of Purgatory?
Don't you read my posts?
I have posted those passages here just in the past few days and also on several other boards you were on over the years.
Why do you ignore that fact of truth?
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
How many times must I post the Scripture that indicates the reality of Purgatory?
Don't you read my posts?
I have posted those passages here just in the past few days and also on several other boards you were on over the years.
Why do you ignore that fact of truth?
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I have read your posts, and you can keep copying and pasting the same old same old hundreds of times and it won't be any more true. You know that I have refuted themelsewhere a number of times previously. Must I show you where these are taken out of context again?

Have you taken the time to check them out yourself yet, or are you just copying and pasting them off the website once again?

De Maria, I have to wonder if perhaps you did not open this can of worms with the intent to open the debate. Looking back on the responses... yes, I've read them. Numerous times.

Understanding where the majorities travel, I see both sides of the lines. I see, too, that this thread ain't going to end with all parties thinking along the same lines. Now; I don't follow either the church, or the scripture, but I respect both. I've friends from all walks of spiritual life, and none of them do I scorn for their beliefs. So, here is where I stood almost twelve years ago. I'd have been almost fifteen, back then.

For much of my youth, I had been searching for reasons to believe in the bible. To believe in the priests and the preachers; their teachings and doctrines. I would say I was lucky enough NOT to have a superimposing family whose life values were based solely on faith and religion. At the same time, that may have proved to have been a flaw in life. I don't know.

Simultaneously, I found less and less that if I was to find faith with the scriptures, to take them fully and completely literally would have been folly in and of its own right. I read from the bible; asked my questions and was not satisfied with the answers, based on the different perspectives I was getting from different preachers from the same churches I attended.

Between the ages of fifteen and twenty, I walked with Protestant, Methodist, Catholic, Jehovas, etc. Different preachers for the same organizations had given me differing views that invariably led fellow members of the church into arguments, disputes and verbal eruptons that I would not by choice return within several weeks. At that time, I was a sponge for the knowledge they might grant to me.

If I was to find the faith in myself, however, I found I could not rely on them. I chose not to rely on them. I returned to my father's belief, in the end. That to find the kingdom of god lay not within the church, but LOOSELY within the scriptures, and with the self.

Now, in my youth, as well, I was known for being a bit of a rebel. For being the one that cracked the foundations, so that others might explain themselves a little more. One of the classes I ended up taking for a filler to my schedules was a bible study class. This was back in Eastern Kentucky. Definite Bible-Belt materia, this region. Yet, the teacher had asked that each of us pose a question at the beginning day, and ask if we had found our answers to that question at the ending day of the class.

My question: For a Scripture of God to have been re-written so many times, removed from and added to by the elders of our civilizations, why do we follow its doctrines as though they are truth?

My answer: For seven of ten people, the scriptures are what we are raised to believe to be true. Despite our historical teachings that the bible and its doctrines have been a ploy to keep us as a mob of people in line with what our elders and teachers want for us; not for what we ourselves yearn to feel for in a faith.

Scriptures alone, or church with them?

Because of my youth, I cannot in good faith follow either--I take my own path to find god in the end.

I hope this gives another perspective upon which to guide your responses in the future, De Maria.

Peace be with you.

Free Dream

De Maria, I have to wonder if perhaps you did not open this can of worms with the intent to open the debate.

Why yes. That is correct.

Apparently you came into this forum with the same misconception that I did when I originally joined. I thought it was a question and answer forum. Someone asks a question and another person answers it.

However, when I answered my first question, it was immediately challenged and the debates were on. I was taken by surprise, but I'm well qualified to debate, so I joined the fray.

Anyway, welcome to the forum.


Looking back on the responses... yes, I've read them. Numerous times.

Understanding where the majorities travel, I see both sides of the lines. I see, too, that this thread ain't going to end with all parties thinking along the same lines. Now; I don't follow either the church, or the scripture, but I respect both. I've friends from all walks of spiritual life, and none of them do I scorn for their beliefs. So, here is where I stood almost twelve years ago. I'd have been almost fifteen, back then.

For much of my youth, I had been searching for reasons to believe in the bible. To believe in the priests and the preachers; their teachings and doctrines. I would say I was lucky enough NOT to have a superimposing family whose life values were based solely on faith and religion. At the same time, that may have proved to have been a flaw in life. I don't know.

Simultaneously, I found less and less that if I was to find faith with the scriptures, to take them fully and completely literally would have been folly in and of its own right. I read from the bible; asked my questions and was not satisfied with the answers, based on the different perspectives I was getting from different preachers from the same churches I attended.

Between the ages of fifteen and twenty, I walked with Protestant, Methodist, Catholic, Jehovas, etc. Different preachers for the same organizations had given me differing views that invariably led fellow members of the church into arguments, disputes and verbal eruptons that I would not by choice return within several weeks. At that time, I was a sponge for the knowledge they might grant to me.

If I was to find the faith in myself, however, I found I could not rely on them. I chose not to rely on them. I returned to my father's belief, in the end. That to find the kingdom of god lay not within the church, but LOOSELY within the scriptures, and with the self.

Now, in my youth, as well, I was known for being a bit of a rebel. For being the one that cracked the foundations, so that others might explain themselves a little more. One of the classes I ended up taking for a filler to my schedules was a bible study class. This was back in Eastern Kentucky. Definite Bible-Belt materia, this region. Yet, the teacher had asked that each of us pose a question at the beginning day, and ask if we had found our answers to that question at the ending day of the class.

My question: For a Scripture of God to have been re-written so many times, removed from and added to by the elders of our civilizations, why do we follow its doctrines as though they are truth?

My answer: For seven of ten people, the scriptures are what we are raised to believe to be true. Despite our historical teachings that the bible and its doctrines have been a ploy to keep us as a mob of people in line with what our elders and teachers want for us; not for what we ourselves yearn to feel for in a faith.

Scriptures alone, or church with them?

Because of my youth, I cannot in good faith follow either--I take my own path to find god in the end.

I hope this gives another perspective upon which to guide your responses in the future, De Maria.

We've got something in common. I once did not believe either party myself. I was atheist. I have now come to believe the Catholic Church passionately.

I hope that in following these debates and in participating in them, we may share with you why we, ALL, believe Scripture. And why, those of us who are Catholic, believe also Tradition and the Church.


Peace be with you.

Free Dream

And with you. I'll see you on the boards. Unfortunately, not soon, since I'll be leaving around noon. And my times almost up. God willing I'll rejoin the forum in a week.

Sincerely,

De Maria

FreeDream,
"To each his own" as the saying goes.
In my case the more I studied the bible the more I found that I can believe what it says.
That does not mean Scripture Only, far from it.
The bible tells us that Jesus founded a Church to carry on for Him after he ascended and it has done so for 2000 years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

FreeDream,
"To each his own" as the saying goes.
In my case the more I studied the bible the more I found that I can believe what it says.
That does not mean Scripture Only, far from it.


So the more you study scripture, the more that you move away from recognizing it as the standard of doctrine?

Hmmmm... for me it was the opposite - the more I study it, the more that I come to realize the divine nature of the books.



The bible tells us that Jesus founded a Church to carry on for Him after he ascended and it has done so for 2000 years.


Jesus never left my church and remains the head as scripture says.

Jesus did not found a denomination, but rather His church is the body of Christ.

Tj3,
Wrong again.
Jesus founded The Church he called My Church. Denominations came along many years later when faction broke away fro that mother church which history informs the world that it has been growing and vital fro 2000 years.
I know you don't believe that, but it is the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
Wrong again.
Jesus founded The Church he called My Church. Denominations came along many years later

Right - Jesus founded the body of Christ. The first denomination was in 325AD.

If your church needs a stand-in for Jesus because He went away, come to my church - he is still the head.

Eph 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

Note: Present tense, not past tense.

Right - Jesus founded the body of Christ. The first denomination was in 325AD.

If your church needs a stand-in for Jesus because He went away, come to my church - he is still the head.

Eph 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

Note: Present tense, not past tense.

Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church. But He appointed His own stand-in.

John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

The office of Vicar of Christ is recognized by the Catholic Church alone. And it is directly from Scripture:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Note that Jesus gave Peter a name that formerly was reserved for God. This is in line with the Old Testament which records that God told Moses:

Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

In the Old Testament, God selected Moses as His representative and anyone who sat on Moses' seat was to be obeyed:

Matthew 23 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do....

And in the New Testament God appointed Simon His representative. And whoever sits on the Chair of Peter is to be obeyed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church. But He appointed His own stand-in.

Maybe your Jesus, but my Jesus is still here and still head of my church.

You old and worn out arguments have been addressed so may times that I see no need to address them again.

Maybe your Jesus, but my Jesus is still here and still head of my church.

You old and worn out arguments have been addressed so may times that I see no need to address them again.

If you could address them you would.

If you could address them you would.

I did. But if you did not listen the first 30 times, why should I waste my time with 31?

I did. But if you did not listen the first 30 times, why should I waste my time with 31?

Nope, you didn't.

Nope, you didn't.

See - you weren't listening.

De Maria,
He may have done so here a long time ago or on other boards.
I have been on other boards with Tj3 (Tom Smith) for several years and I have not seen his so called 30 times.
The fact is that Jesus establish an earthly Church to carry on beyond the gospels, and earthly authority he called His Bride.
It was a very wise thing for Jesus to do and he picked the best man of the Apostles, Peter, to be The Church's first leader.
That is clearly what the bible tell us, but some do not want to believe what the bible says in that regard.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria,
He may have done so here a long time ago or on other boards.
I have been on other boards with Tj3 (Tom Smith) for several years and I have not seen his so called 30 times.

But then again Fred, there are many things that were on the board that you either claimed not to see or ignored.


The fact is that Jesus establish an earthly Church to carry on beyond the gospels, and earthly authority he called His Bride.

Jesus did not establish a denomination - even you agreed with that statement.


It was a very wise thing for Jesus to do and he picked the best man of the Apostles, Peter, to be The Church's first leader.

My Jesus stayed at the church and did not need to pick anyone. The best man is God in the flesh.

Tj3.
Please get it through your head that denominations did NOT come along for hundreds of years after Jesus established His Church.
Your argument about a denomination in moot. It has no validity or substance.
Therefore it is senseless and useless.

Tj3.
Please get it through your head that denominations did NOT come along for hundreds of years after Jesus established His Church.

That is what I am saying, but then you flip flop and try to claim that Jesus established your denomination.

Tj3,
My Church IS the Church that Jesus established is was at that time not a denomination. It is The Mother Church from which all the denominations split.
As I said, "Your argument about a denomination in moot. It has no validity or substance. Therefore it is senseless and useless."
Trying to continue to argue that is silly and useless for it just will not fly with reality.

Tj3,
My Church IS the Church that Jesus established is was at that time not a denomination.

It is a denomination and it makes no sense for Jesus to come in the 1st century and wait until the 4th century to start what you claim to be his denomination

Tj3,
That is your opinion.
It is not biblically or historically accurate.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It is a denomination and it makes no sense for Jesus to come in the 1st century and wait until the 4th century to start what you claim to be his denomination
Soooo... what "denomination" was around before the 4th century?

Evangelical Protestantism? :confused:

I see a church centered around their Bishops... who shared a sacred meal of thanksgiving... and practiced ritual water baptism for the remission of sins... had a monarchial episcopate and a hierarchy of Bishop/Priest/Deacon... as a community gathering and deciding what books were to be included and excluded in their sacred canon... ummm, sounds a LITTLE Catholic--------> don't it?:)

Tj3,
That is your opinion.
It is not biblically or historically accurate.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

Since you are either neither an expert on the Bible or history, I will take my information from the Bible itself and from knowledgeable historians.

Soooo.... what "denomination" was around before the 4th century?

I am not aware of any denominations in that timeframe. It appears that the Roman church was the first.

I am not aware of any denominations in that timeframe. It appears that the Roman church was the first.
I get it... just a group of individuals who practiced a faith similar to what you today would call "Catholic"... I can live with that.

I get it... just a group of individuals who practiced a faith similar to what you today would call "Catholic"..... I can live with that.

No, the Roman church today is much different. Many of the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church. Then the denomination kept "evolving" their doctrine to what we have today.

No, the Roman church today is much different.
Where in the Bible does it describe the beliefs of the 2-4th century Christian church?

Many of the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church.
So Christian history pre-Constantine should be an accurate representation of orthodox Christian teaching?

Where in the Bible does it describe the beliefs of the 2-4th century Christian church?

Why would it? The canon was closed before then.


So Christian history pre-Constantine should be an accurate representation of orthodox Christian teaching?

I answered that previously. The Bible is an accurate indicator of what Christian doctrine is. History is not. Because history is the record of what men have done, and men began to stray away from sound teachings very early - the NT records some members of the early church already straying into heresy.

Tj3,
That is also where I get my accurate information.
You just see it differently than I do.
You believe as you wish and I will do the same.
Is that OK with you?
Fred

Why would it? The canon was closed before then.
I'm just wondering where you discerned your information about history from...

Because history is the record of what men have done, and men began to stray away from sound teachings very early - the NT records some members of the early church already straying into heresy.
I agree... but I'm still wondering if you can provide some examples of your "bible-only" Christians ---- pre-Constantine... I doubt you would post something so foolish without being able to support this with facts, right?

History should support your contention that "the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church"... you should be able to provide ample quotes from the early Church that show how Christians have a theology similar to yours... and then show examples of the corruption after Catholicism became pagan.

Looking forward to reading your examples.

ScottRC
I would also like to see that from Tj3.
Particularly with the fact that history provides hundreds of letters and documents which demonstrate the true history of The Church from it's beginning with Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

ScottRC
I would also like to see that from Tj3.
Particularly with the fact that history provides hundreds of letters and documents which demonstrate the true history of The Church from it's beginning with Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'm just wondering where you discerned your information about history from...

You think that the canon remained open?


I agree... but I'm still wondering if you can provide some examples of your "bible-only" Christians

I find it interesting. I said that I do believe in sola scripture, but not "BIble alone" or "scripture alone", so what terms do you use? I would have thought that if ylou wanted an honest discussion, you would deal with what I actually believe not what you claim that I believe.


History should support your contention that "the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church"... you should be able to provide ample quotes from the early Church that show how Christians have a theology similar to yours... and then show examples of the corruption after Catholicism became pagan.

I have posted information on here numerous times.

Tj3,
That is also where I get my accurate information.
You just see it differently than I do.

Where do you get your information from, Fred?


You believe as you wish and I will do the same.
Is that OK with you?
Fred

I have always said that you can believe whatever you want. However, if you promote denominational teachings contrary to what scripture teaches, expect to be challenged.

Tj3,
Since when is the belief in Sola Scripture not Bible only or scripture alone?
Millions of people believe they are the same.
Fred

You think that the canon remained open?
Until when?

Hebrews wasn't used in the West (by those non-denominational Christians) for two hundred years... and the East with Revelation for some 800 years... so I'm not sure when YOU believe the canon was closed.

I find it interesting. I said that I do believe in sola scripture, but not "BIble alone"
Pretend I used sola scriptura... my bad... same questions still apply.

I have posted information on here numerous times.
I didn't think you could... oh well.

Sorry Fred.

ScottRC,
I'm sorry also.
Fred

Tj3,
Since when is the belief in Sola Scripture not Bible only or scripture alone?
Millions of people believe they are the same.
Fred

No, Fred. This has been explained to you many times. No one says that we should avoid other books and references. What sola scriptura says is that the Bible is our sole standard of doctrine against which any other works or doctrines or beliefs should be measured for truth.

Until when?

Hebrews wasn't used in the West (by those non-denominational Christians) for two hundred years.... and the East with Revelation for some 800 years..... so I'm not sure when YOU believe the canon was closed.


So you define the canon by when a document was used not written. Interesting how a book would be preserved for 200 years if it was not used at all.

So you define the canon by when a document was used not written.

Well yeah. What does canon mean to you?

The Canon of the Bible
The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. ...
The Canon of the Bible (http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm)

During the time of the Apostles, there was no official canon of the New Testament. The canon was not established until or about 393ad. Until that time, many other books which the Catholic Church calls Apocrypha were also considered Scripture by many. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache.


Interesting how a book would be preserved for 200 years if it was not used at all.



There you go twisting words. He said, and I quote:


Hebrews wasn't used in the West (by those non-denominational Christians) for two hundred years.

He didn't say it wasn't used at all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well yeah. What does canon mean to you?

[QUOTE]During the time of the Apostles, there was no official canon of the New Testament. The canon was not established until or about 393ad. Until that time, many other books which the Catholic Church calls Apocrypha were also considered Scripture by many. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache.

This did not address the point at all.


There you go twisting words. He said, and I quote:

Ah yes, so if it was not use by Christians, then who did use it?

This did not address the point at all.

Sure it does.


Ah yes, so if it was not use by Christians, then who did use it?

My goodness. Do you have that much trouble understanding English? Obviously it was not used by Christians in the West. Therefore it was used by Christians in the East.

My goodness. Do you have that much trouble understanding English? Obviously it was not used by Christians in the West. Therefore it was used by Christians in the East.
When you only read anti-Catholic apologetics, some of the real history of the Christian faith slips through the cracks... :(

Sure it does.

Maybe in your mind.


My goodness. Do you have that much trouble understanding English? Obviously it was not used by Christians in the West. Therefore it was used by Christians in the East.

Ah yes, the tried and true ad hominems, best used when you have no means of rebuttal.

When you only read anti-Catholic apologetics, some of the real history of the Christian faith slips through the cracks.... :(

I must be hitting right on target - more ad hominems.

Most of what I read about Roman Catholicism is written by Romans Catholics and has the endorsement of the Roman church.

Most of what I read regarding sound doctrine is in the Bible. If these sources are anti-Catholic, well, it would be good for you to consider the implications.

Maybe in your mind.

Ah yes, the tried and true ad hominems, best used when you have no means of rebuttal.

Obviously you've lost interest in intelligent debate. Bye.

Obviously you've lost interest in intelligent debate. Bye.

I have interest in an intelligent debate. Do you know where I can find one?

I never did have interest in ad hominem arguments.

De Maria and ScottRC,
I agree that you both are correct.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I must be hitting right on target - more ad hominems.

Most of what I read about Roman Catholicism is written by Romans Catholics and has the endorsement of the Roman church.

You might want to post it some time so we can explain it to you.


Most of what I read regarding sound doctrine is in the Bible.

I doubt it. Although you deny being Protestant, your doctrines are based on Protestant premises which are unsound since they are really a rebellion against the Church of God.


If these sources are anti-Catholic, well, it would be good for you to consider the implications.

Your doctrines are not based on the Bible as you claim. But on Protestant Traditions which you claim not to follow. But your adherence to Sola Scriptura belies that claim.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I must be hitting right on target - more ad hominems.
*yawn*

Come on... you've got to give up on this... it works the first time, but then you've got to actually start discussing the thread topics.

I'm still wondering if you can provide some examples of your "bible-only" Christians ---- pre-Constantine... I doubt you would post something so foolish without being able to support this with facts, right?

History should support your contention that "the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church"... you should be able to provide ample quotes from the early Church that show how Christians have a theology similar to yours... and then show examples of the corruption after Catholicism became pagan.

Looking forward to reading your examples, heck, even ONE example... instead of the usual dodge.

The Scriptures say that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that if we don't hear the Church (Matt 18:17) we should be treated as heathen.


The Church is a House of God, and He is the Pillar and the Ground Truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 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.


To determine righteousness, results of 3 if thy brother shall trespass against thee Matthew 18:15-16 One should always try to resolve this alone first. The of witness, followed last with the church.

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.



Yet some people say we should neglect the Church and listen to Scripture alone?


The Importance of Scriptures

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Why, if doing so is to disobey Scripture?

I would suggest you use Our Father's Truth if the church is His House.

As a child of God we enter the House of God to give honor, praise , and glory to Our Father. Our Father is the Spirit of Truth to all that is written.

Deu 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.

Jude 1:24-25 Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Believe

*yawn*
Come on... you've gotta give up on this.... it works the first time, but then you've gotta actually start discussing the thread topics.

Scott,

When you or Maria decide to start discussing, and not either posting ad hominems or other abuse, and stop trying to tell everyone else that your denomination is God's only denomination, and start actually addressing the points raised respectfully, then we can have a real discussion - something that I think would be quite interesting.

The other thing is that when you start asking me for things that I provided to your dozens of times, I find it hard to believe that you are serious, but rather it comes across that you are just trying to waste my time.

Tom

You might want to post it some time so we can explain it to you.

I got a good laugh out of that!


I doubt it. Although you deny being Protestant, your doctrines are based on Protestant premises which are unsound since they are really a rebellion against the Church of God.

First, I see no indication that you have listened enough to know what I believe - you have misrepresented my beliefs time and again. And the arrogance in your last line speaks for itself.

Tom

SottRC,
I see the Tj3 can not produce that which he claims he can, instead he cries "abuse" for your noticing that.
Fred

The Church is a House of God, and He is the Pillar and the Ground Truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 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.


To determine righteousness, results of 3 if thy brother shall trespass against thee Matthew 18:15-16 One should always try to resolve this alone first. The of witness, followed last with the church.

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.




The Importance of Scriptures

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.



I would suggest you use Our Father's Truth if the church is His House.

As a child of God we enter the House of God to give honor, praise , and glory to Our Father. Our Father is the Spirit of Truth to all that is written.

Deu 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.

Jude 1:24-25 Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Believe

Sndbay,

Your post seems to support my argument against Scripture alone.

If it doesn't, please show where and how any of those references in your message support Scripture alone.

De Maria,
I would also like to see that.
Fred

SottRC,
I see the Tj3 can not produce that which he claims he can, instead he cries "abuse" for your noticing that.
Fred

Fred, I have produced everything that I claimed, and I did so without the need to abuse or use ad hominems, You cannot say the same, or you would still be on AW.

Tj3,
Where is that abuse you claim?
I merely stated my fear for your soul.
It is why through my love of Jesus and for his followers like you that I have been praying for years and will continue to do so.
I want to see you in heaven.
It the name of Jesus I love you and want to see to saved.
No abuse done or intended.
Fred

Tj3,
Where is that abuse you claim?
I merely stated my fear for your soul.
It is why through my love of Jesus and for his followers like you that I have been praying for years and will continue to do so.
I want to see you in heaven.
It the name of Jesus I love you and want to see to saved.
No abuse done or intended.
Fred

Fred,

Your abuse is obvious to anyone who cares. It was obvious to the owners of AW.

Tj3,
Since when is the love of Jesus and for those who follow him abuse?
Fred

We've been through this. Many different Bibles include non-canonical reference material. And the New Catholic Encyclopedia (among other sources) agree with me. Deny if you wishg - it will not change reality.

Et al:

Regarding Sacred Scripture

I think De Maria may have covered this several times in this and other threads, repeating it surly couldn't hurt.

The Council of Laodicea (circa 365) is first synod or council to have reportedly discussed the books in the Scripture. The following is the Old Testament books discussed: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

The following were the New Testament books discussed: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon. CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm)

While these books may or may not have been canonized at the Council of Laodicea, the Council provides historical proof that many of the books considered sacred by St. Jerome were considered sacred by that date. Furthermore, it is apparent that they had been used for some time.

Later, the Scriptures were canonized by Pope Innocent in 405; intact as we know it today and were re-canonized by Trent, Session 4, 1546. The fourth session of the Council of Trent listed the books as those contained in the Latin Vulgate. And just to remove any ambiguity it was flatly stated, “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” The Vulgate is one and the same translation by St. Jerome for Pope Damasus in 374, proclaimed by St. Augustine (circa 397) and approved by Pope Innocent.

Prior to that St Jerome, we see that the early Church Fathers used an Old Testament containing the deuterocanonical books, which were considered sacred:

Didache: Wisdom
St. Clement: Judith, Wisdom, Esther
St. Polycarp: Tobit,
St. Irenaeus: Baruch, Wisdom
Clement of Alex: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1Mach, 2Mach, Daniel
St. Hippolytus: Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1Mach, 2Mach, Daniel
Tertullian: Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1Mach, 2Mach, Daniel
Origen: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1Mach, 2Mach, Daniel, Esther
St. Cyprian: Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1Mach, 2Mach, Daniel


As I'm sure you're aware, the argument that the Roman Catholic Church “changed” the Scriptural Cannon in 1546 simply isn't true.


I had actually written this for another thread, but it seems it is now closed. I hadn't participated in that thread, so it couldn't have been caused by me – I can get argumentative. This is the third or fourth thread closed for the same reason in the last few weeks. I suspension that this is a tactic used to close any discussion regarding topics in which Catholics participate. Am I imagining things?


JoeT

JoeT777
Thanks for posting that here as has been posted on the Christian board before.
It is good for the truth to be reposted for those who had not the opportunity to see it previously.
It is also of value for those who want to remember it well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Sndbay,

Your post seems to support my argument against Scripture alone.

If it doesn't, please show where and how any of those references in your message support Scripture alone.

Christ is the Foundation and upon it was the fellowship built by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the corner stone. This is what the House of God feeds the children of God. The fellowship in Christ, the Foundation.

1 Corinthains 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ

Eph 2:19- 20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, [but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

DeMaria, Who Did Christ follow?

If it doesn't, please show where and how any of those references in your message support Scripture alone.

Reinterated

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, [which are able] to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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:


DeMaria, Without discrediting the facts that are told to us in these scriptures, that are refer as the Truth of Our Father, as the inspiration that Our Father gives, what else can be put above?

Your Choice

Christ is the Foundation and upon it was the fellowship built by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the corner stone. This is what the House of God feeds the children of God. The fellowship in Christ, the Foundation.

1 Corinthains 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ

Are you saying that Christ did not have the authority to build His Church upon the foundation of Peter?


Eph 2:19- 20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, [but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

This says that the Apostles are the foundation. That would tend to confirm that Jesus could establish His Church upon the foundation of Peter.


DeMaria, Who Did Christ follow?

I don't know, who?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Reinterated

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, [which are able] to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

This is Catholic teaching. I see nowhere the terminology Scripture alone or only Scripture or anything that would indicate that the Church does not also have authority given by Christ nor that Traditions are no longer in force.


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:

"All" does not translate to "only". And the entire verse is set in the context of teaching. So obviously St. Paul is not there teaching Scripture alone.


DeMaria, Without discrediting the facts that are told to us in these scriptures, that are refer as the Truth of Our Father, as the inspiration that Our Father gives, what else can be put above?

Are you asking me, what is needed in order to prove Sola Scriptura from these verses? If so, I would have to see the context of the entire message.

Lets look at 2 Tim 1:
11 Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles. 12 For which cause I also suffer these things: but I am not ashamed. For I know whom I have believed, and I am certain that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him, against that day. 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

Note how St. Paul is teaching Oral Tradition. He is a preacher, an apostle and a teacher. And he instructs Timothy to Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me .

So, in the first Chapter, St. Paul is teaching St. Timothy to teach.

Lets look at chapter 2:
1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

Still teaching St. Timothy to teach.

Chapter 3 you've provided, but let me emphasize the teaching aspect again:
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Note how he is preparing the man of God to teach others.

And finally chapter 4:
1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

That's pretty self explanatory. Although you guys want to take one little verse, pretend that "all" means "only" and then discard the rest of the second letter of Timothy to force the Scriptures to teach Sola Scriptura, a true understanding of that letter, in context, is about Magisterium. The Teaching Church. St. Paul a Bishopand member of the Church Magisterium is teaching a new Bishop what are His duties as Bishop. And his duty is to teach.


Your Choice

That is true. I choose to believe Scripture and obey my Church leaders:
Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

This says that the Apostles are the foundation. That would tend to confirm that Jesus could establish His Church upon the foundation of Peter.


I don't know, who?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christ is the foundation, no other ! 1 Corinthains 3:11 For other foundation can [no man] lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Fellowcitzens with the saints, just like all that are believers in Christ, who are baptized with Christ.

Those believers baptized walk in Christ. ... Perfect Faith!

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;...



The apostles and prophets walked in Christ because they were believers that were baptized in Christ.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Confirming in whom all the building fitly framed grow together... unto a holy temple in Christ. There is no doubting allowed in who and where we place our belief in. Nor is there question where Peter put his own faith.

Eph 2:21 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

In whom... confirming again what is being built together in Christ by the encouragement of God through the Spirit.. The Spirit of Truth


Are you saying that Christ did not have the authority to build His Church upon the foundation of Peter?

DeMaria, You can choice to put Peter as the foundation of your church.

My choice in mind and heart is Christ! Christ never build the Perfect Faith, or Our Father's House on Peter.. NEVER NEVER.. The Spirit of Truth is built on Christ!

This is Catholic teaching. I see nowhere the terminology Scripture alone or only Scripture or anything that would indicate that the Church does not also have authority given by Christ nor that Traditions are no longer in force.

Our Father's Word is telling us scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation. WOW! My choice is follow this source of salvation.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, [which are able] to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

My choice is Truth in what scripture offers ..

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





Are you asking me, what is needed in order to prove Sola Scriptura from these verses? If so, I would have to see the context of the entire message.

I asked you a question point blank: DeMaria, Without discrediting the facts that are told to us in these scriptures. As Truth of Our Father, as the inspiration that Our Father gives, what else can be put above scripture? what is your choice above Truth?




Lets look at 2 Tim 1:
[I]11 Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles. 12 For which cause I also suffer these things: but I am not ashamed. For I know whom I have believed, and I am certain that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him, against that day. 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

Note how St. Paul is teaching Oral Tradition. He is a preacher, an apostle and a teacher. And he instructs Timothy to Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me .

Paul is telling us to hold form of sound words which he spoke in Faith, and the love in Christ.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.


Paul knew of his previous following of his fathers traditions.. Must I refer those scripture?

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.



Lets look at chapter 2:
1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.


Paul speaking of us being strong in the Grace which is Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ





Still teaching St. Timothy to teach.

Chapter 3 you've provided, but let me emphasize the teaching aspect again:
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Note how he is preparing the man of God to teach others.

THis is confirming scripture as the profitable for man to teach, and is the perfect man that does teach it.





That is true. I choose to believe Scripture and obey my Church leaders:
Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

sincerely,

De Maria

Free Will, we all have it, in mind and heart your choice will be known by Christ.

My choice is to be a child of God, and walk into the House of God to give Praise, Honor and Glory to "ONE" ... My Rock is Christ, and I do as Peter did, we are baptized and believe In Christ.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The Rock

While these books may or may not have been canonized at the Council of Laodicea, the Council provides historical proof that many of the books considered sacred by St. Jerome were considered sacred by that date.

Being used, and being canonical or sacred are much different things. This is the problem throughout this discussion, and that is that there is no discernment regarding such key differences, nor the sources which are used. You will note that I also provided a Roman catholic source which showed that the additional books were added by your denomination at the council of Trent. But of course you won't consider that input because it does not agree with you! I use sources from all sides in order to get an unbalanced view.

sndbay
I go by what the bible clearly says.
Jesus was/is the founder on the foundation of the person He named Peter for his faith was like a rock.
Peace ad kindness,
Fred

Being used, and being canonical or sacred are much different things. This is the problem throughout this discussion, and that is that there is no discernment regarding such key differences, nor the sources which are used. You will note that I also provided a Roman catholic source which showed that the additional books were added by your denomination at the council of Trent. But of course you won't consider that input because it does not agree with you! I use sources from all sides in order to get an unbalanced view.

I never saw proof that “Trent added books,” If you did show proof, I'm afraid I was unimpressed, so much so, I don't recall it. But let me quote Trent one more time. No matter how the list of books in Session 4 of the Council of Trent is read, it is followed by the following statement. It removes any AMBIGUITY that the Scriptures referred to are those of St. Jerome's Vulgate:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

The Vulgate is the official Bible. Any English translation should conform to the intent of the Latin Vulgate.

JoeT

I never saw proof that “Trent added books,” If you did show proof, I’m afraid I was unimpressed, so much so, I don't recall it.

Judging before you see it then - that is called "prejudice".


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Vulgate is the official Bible. Any English translation should conform to the intent of the Latin Vulgate.

Perhaps of your religion. But not of mine.

JoeT777
Weather anyone says of believes otherwise the official bible of the Catholic Church Is the official verson of the bible as originally promulgated by The Church via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
In other words God directed it to happen as it did.
Everyone who uses a bible uses a Catholic book whether they want to believe it or not.
Some versions are missing some of the official books, so there are Not the complete Bible.
That is sad for there is much information, wisdom, and spirituality in those books called the Apcrypha.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Judging before you see it then - that is called "prejudice".
Discernment isn't prejudice. In the sense that I have a prejudice for truth and logic, I agree with your statement.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what? St. Jerome couldn't have Canonized Scripture in and of his own authority. Pope Damasus Canonized Scripture and in 374. And again by Pope Innocent in 405




Perhaps of your religion. But not of mine.
No, it's not mine to possess, but it is God's Kingdom on earth, and yes I'm a member.

JoeT

JoeT777
Weather anyone says of believes otherwise the official bible of the Catholic Church Is the official verson of the bible as originally promulgated by The Church via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
In other words God directed it to happen as it did.
Everyone who uses a bible uses a Catholic book whether they want to believe it or not.
Some versions are missing some of the offical books, so there are Not the complete Bible.
That is sad for there is much information, wisdom, and spirituality in those books called the Apcrypha.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I agree fully.

JoeT

JoeT777
Weather anyone says of believes otherwise the official bible of the Catholic Church Is the official verson of the bible as originally promulgated by The Church via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Then you are finally agreeing that the apochrypha is not in the Bible!

I was not aware that they had revoked their decision at Trent - when did this happen?

Tj3,
You said "not in my religion".
That is very interesting Joe and I and other Catholics are Christians who believe what was posted so...
Are you now saying that you are not a Christian?
Or worse yet, saying the 2 billion Catholics are not Christians?
Just wondering,
Fred

Tj3,
You said "not in my religion".
That is very interesting Joe and I and other Catholics are Christians who believe what was posted so....
Are you now saying that you are not a Christian?
Or worse yet, saying the 2 billion Catholics are not Christians?
Just wondering,
Fred

Fred,

The pope himself called your denomination a religion by itself, so are saying that he erred? It is on vatican.va.

Do I believe that 2 billion Catholic are all Christians - No - I don't think ANYONE is a Christian because they belong to any church or denomination be they catholic, Lutheran, baptist, Orthodox or anything else. They are a Christian because they have received salvation through faith in the all sufficiency of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross alone for their salvation. I have done so therefore am a Christian. I do believe that there are Christians in your denomination also.

Tj3,
Thank you for your personal explanation.
I believe that most if not all Catholics are Christians and saved by the grace of God,
I also believe that most other Christian denominations have a great many members who are saved by the frace of God.
I pray that they all are for I don't want any of them go to eternal hell.
The pope calls the Catholic Church Christian.
I have never heard of or seen any pope say otherwise.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
Thank you for your personal explanation.
I believe that most if not all Catholics are Christians and saved by the grace of God,
I also believe that most other Christian denominations have a great many members who are saved by the frace of God.
I pray that they all are for I don't want any of them go to eternal hell.
The pope calls the Catholic Church Christian.
I have never heard of or seen any pope say otherwise.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Fred, The judgement remains in Christ hands, but I find the Spirit of Truth in scripture says, Our Father loves all His children. Those who believe and are baptized walk in Christ, and must believe in perfect faith. For in Christ we hold stedfast in love of The Spiritual Truth in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Eph 4:7-8 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

For The Perfect Faith in us, and the ministry

Eph 4:12 For the [perfecting of the saints,] for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

This is Till When? Scripture says until all come unity of the knowledge of the Son, to come a perfect man in Christ.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Eph 4:14 thr 24 goes on to say until no more doctrines thrown around this way and that. But rather teaching the truth in love, and grow up into Christ in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ. Put on Christ the Rock , Walk in the Perfect Faith

Eph 4:26 thr 31 goes on to say neither give place to the devil. I, choice to view this as a warning, of protection and love.

Who and where does all this come from? To us on Earth from God.
Eph 4:9-10 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Who does Christ give to?

Eph 4:11 And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Then go back up and read Eph 4:12-13.. It's all here


I pray the readers can share the perfect faith that Christ brought us all.
Good Day to You

Judging before you see it then - that is called "prejudice".


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perhaps of your religion. But not of mine.

This so called "New" Catholic Encyclopedia must be another of your anti-Catholic authorities pretending to be Catholic. Because St. Jerome himself defended the Deuterocanon as inspired LATER IN HIS LIFE. Of course, since your intent here is to malign the Catholic Church, you conveniently left that out.


That is called prejudice with malicious intent.

Besides the fact that St. Jerome included the Deuterocanon in his Latin Vulgate, here's more evidence that St. Jerome accepted the judgement of the Church in regards to the Deuterocanon:

Others point to St. Jerome's “rejection” of deuterocanonical material. While Jerome was originally suspicious of the “extra” Old Testament books, which he only knew in Greek, he fully accepted the judgment of the Church on the matter, as shown in a letter written in 402 A.D.:

What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? . . . I was not relating my own personal views [when I wrote the objections of the Jews to the longer form of Daniel in my introduction], but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us [Christians who accept the longer form of Daniel], (Against Rufinius, 11:33, emphasis added).[11]
CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith (http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28)

Which makes me wonder your ethics TJ? Since you obviously knew that saintjoan was misrepresenting herself and you were helping her deceive the people of this forum. What does your Sola Scriptura morality say about lying and giving false witness?

Sincerely,

De Maria

This so called "New" Catholic Encyclopedia must be another of your anti-Catholic authorities pretending to be Catholic.

This speaks loudly - without even checking out anything about the source, you say that this encyclopedia, put out years ago by a Catholic University, is anti-Catholic.

This is the problem - you attack anything or anybody who dares to disagree with you, no matter what the facts are.

BTW, if you have an issue with saintjoan, deal with saintjoan. I am not responsible for any other users on this site. Or maybe you cannot deal with what saintjoan is saying, so you are trying to avoid her.

Which makes me wonder your ethics TJ? Since you obviously knew that saintjoan was misrepresenting herself and you were helping her deceive the people of this forum. What does your Sola Scriptura morality say about lying and giving false witness?

Sincerely,

De Maria




This is the problem - you attack anything or anybody who dares to disagree with you, no matter what the facts are.



Have either of you read Ephesians 4.. It was posted in #397

Eph 4:7-8 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Eph 4:9-10 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Eph 4:11 And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

For Christ Has Told You

The judgement remains in Christ hands, The Spirit of Truth in scripture says, Our Father loves all His children. Those who believe and are baptized walk in Christ, and must believe in perfect faith. For in Christ we hold stedfast in love of The Spiritual Truth in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Eph 4:12 For the [perfecting of the saints,] for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

This speaks loudly - without even checking out anything about the source, you say that this encyclopedia, put out years ago by a Catholic University, is anti-Catholic.

Anything that you say has now come under suspicion. If it is true that the New Catholic Encyclopdia is truly Catholic, I'll check it out. But the New Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible and I have shown that the excerpt you provided is in error.


This is the problem - you attack anything or anybody who dares to disagree with you, no matter what the facts are.

The problem here is your lack of ethics and morals.


BTW, if you have an issue with saintjoan, deal with saintjoan. I am not responsible for any other users on this site. Or maybe you cannot deal with what saintjoan is saying, so you are trying to avoid her.

I have an issue with your pretending that she is a catholic and with your using her statements as facts. Now, answer the question asked in the other thread, who is the saint joan you said was buried under the Lateran Church?

Your response will prove your complicity in this matter.

Have either of you read Ephesians 4.. It was posted in #397

Eph 4:7-8 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Eph 4:9-10 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Eph 4:11 And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

For Christ Has Told You

The judgement remains in Christ hands, The Spirit of Truth in scripture says, Our Father loves all His children. Those who believe and are baptized walk in Christ, and must believe in perfect faith. For in Christ we hold stedfast in love of The Spiritual Truth in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Eph 4:12 For the [perfecting of the saints,] for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Are you saying that I should forgive him? Shouldn't he first repent? And since this is a public sin committed against the people of this forum, shouldn't he repent publicly?

This Quote scripture is over Your head in Your last posting... as it is here .. Think about it.

Eph 4:13 Till we [all come in the unity of the faith,] and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:



Are you saying that I should forgive him? Shouldn't he first repent? And since this is a public sin committed against the people of this forum, shouldn't he repent publically?

This Quote scripture is over Your head in Your last posting... as it is here .. Think about it.

Eph 4:13 Till we [all come in the unity of the faith,] and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


Ok, I get it. When everybody becomes Catholic we'll be perfect in Christ! Right? That's what "all come in the unity of the faith" means to me. Maybe you better explain - I don't think that's what you mean.

JoeT

Ok, I get it. When everybody becomes Catholic we'll be perfect in Christ! Right? That's what "all come in the unity of the faith" means to me. Maybe you better explain - I don't think that's what you mean.

JoeT

Unity in Love...

The judgement remains in Christ hands, The Spirit of Truth in scripture says, Our Father loves all His children. Those who believe and are baptized walk in Christ, and must believe in perfect faith. For in Christ we hold stedfast in love of The Spiritual Truth in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Stop fighting.. Faith is not a debate... Share the Love of Christ.

Thread closed,