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?

Tradition in the Orthodox Church (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7116.asp)

Some of the reasons for churches tradition. But Orthodox perspective

What Church should we listen to when they teach so many variations?
I am not saying we should not learn from the church but it is no better to believe everything they say.
The Bible also says to study to show yourself approved and not believe everything you hear but test the spirits and the doctrine
I believe it is good to go to church though

The entire Matt 18:17 is

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Mat 18:12 How think ye? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that [sheep], than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Mat 18:15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 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.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.


Which is referring to someone who has fallen away from the faith rather than the church itself.

Hi, thanks for the polite response.


What Church should we listen to when they teach so many variations?

For me, it's the Catholic Church.

The reason, because I believe Jesus established one Church:
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.

And since I can trace the Catholic Church historically back to the Apostles, I believe It is the one that Jesus built.



I am not saying we should not learn from the church but it is no better to believe everything they say.

Since Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), I believe it is what God wants that we should do. We should believe the Chuirch.


The Bible also says to study to show yourself approved and not believe everything you hear but test the spirits and the doctrine
I believe it is good to go to church though

The entire Matt 18:17 is

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Mat 18:12 How think ye? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that [sheep], than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Mat 18:15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 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.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.


Which is referring to someone who has fallen away from the faith rather than the church itself.

The Church teaches the faith and all who believe in this faith are members of His body, the Church:

Colossians 1

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 may hold the primacy:

Sincerely,

De Maria

For me I believe the Assemblies of God church is closer to the right interpretation of the Bible.

Hi, thanks for the polite response.
For me, its the Catholic Church.


Where does Scripture say that priests shall not marry? Don't you get a bit of concern that things are read into Scripture?

The rule on the priests not to marry is not part of the doctrine, it is merely a church rule. And some priests do and can marry, There are other Rites besides the Roman Rite that allow married priests and even in the Roman Rite, pastors from the Orthodox Church, Lutheran Church, Anglican Church and independent Catholic groups have all went into the Catholic Church as married priests, we have had one of our bishops in years past before vatican 2 go back as a married Bishop. So the rule is not 100 percent only for new priests coming though for new ordinations.

It is merely a rule not part of the church doctrine.

Where does Scripture say that priests shall not marry?

I don't think it says that. The "discipline" which the Church imposes on those who want to be priests comes from Paul's admonition:

1 Corinthians 7 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.


Don't you get a bit of concern that things are read into Scripture?

No. But if you give me a for instance, we can look at it together.

As for me, I believe the idea of Sola Scriptura is read into Scripture. No where in Scripture does Scripture say that Scripture alone contains the Word of God. In fact Scripture admonishes us to keep the traditions of word and epistle. Which we interpret to mean of word and Scripture.

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

And Scripture also tells us that the Word of God is passed on by oral teaching.

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

So, based on Scripture, I see no basis for a doctrine known as Scripture alone or Sola Scriptura.

Sincerely,

De Maria

No. But if you give me a for instance, we can look at it together.

No where in Scripture does Scripture say that Scripture alone contains the Word of God. In fact Scripture admonishes us to keep the traditions of word and epistle. Which we interpret to mean of word and Scripture.

De Maria


Okay lets take that for a 'for instance'

The Bible says do not add to the word. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

It also says

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...

And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:5-9, 13

We are told in the New Testament to study the word and RIGHTLY divide it. That means don't be misinterpreting! Tell the truth about the Bible, not lies:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

okay lets take that for a 'for instance'

Ok.


The Bible says do not add to the word.

Do you mean that you believe the Church has added to the Word of God? Please show me where?


For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

As I understand it, this admonition is against adding any words to the book of Revelation. But even if it were an admonition against adding to the entire Bible, which word did the Catholic Church add to the Bible?

As I have heard, Luther added the word "alone" behind the word "faith" in Romans 3:28. But I've never heard that the Catholic Church added any words.

So, could you be more specific.


It also says

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...

And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.

The Catholic Church keeps all the Commandments and teaches us to keep them.

And Scripture tells us to keep the traditions by word and epistle(2 Thess 2:14).

So, the Catholic Church teaches us to keep the Commandments.
And to keep the traditions of God.
And to kieep the tradition of Scripture.

But to reject the traditions of men. For instance, Sola Scriptura. We believe it is a tradition of men who want to justify their denial of the Church which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).


Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:5-9, 13

We are told in the New Testament to study the word and RIGHTLY divide it. That means don't be misinterpreting! Tell the truth about the Bible, not lies:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

But what does it mean to divide the Word rightly. Did you know that the Word of God has a Spiritual component? Do you take this Spiritual component into account when you interpret Scripture?

2 Corinthians 3 6 Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The spiritual component IS the MAIN thing I take into consideration.

Traditions of man

The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15).

Fish Friday -Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed
Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. Some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3).

Praying to Mary -The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church
(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).
Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2).

Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III. in the Lateran Council
The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9).
Confessing to the one you offended and refers to asking forgiveness and showing repentance. Not meant for confessing to Priest.

The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence
There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1).

The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX
The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).

No help 4 you,
You quoted from the book of revelation and THAT is the book Paul referred to, NOT the bible itself which was promulgated centuries later.
Many of the apostles wrote letters and information that they were taught by Jesus or by some of the original twelve which us not in today's bible.
Those teachings and information that was written is called oral tradition which the bibke tells us that we should follow.
Yes, one of the apostles in the bible says to falllow "the traditions I have taught you".
The bible its self is a tradition; written Scripture tradition.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tis not my own horn but I'll toot it anyway. Here's a bit I wrote about Sola Scriptura elsewhere:

About Sola Scriptura (the "Bible Alone")

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.

If we believe in this doctrine, then we should find it in the Bible, right?

In fact, we do not.

The scripture passage so often cited by proponents of Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3: 15-17, however you shall see that Paul teaches nothing of the sort:

2 Timothy 3: 15-17:
"...from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Here there is not even the slightest implication that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. Indeed, it affirms the value of Scripture - and that it is from God (which Catholics are taught), however nothing implies that it is all we need. To say that Scripture is "useful" is one thing, but to say it is the only writing that ought to be followed is another altogether.

Not only is the idea of Sola Scriptura not found in Scripture, itself, the New Testament, in fact, teaches against it:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

The Bible is indeed the Word of God and without error, but neither Christ nor the Bible teach such an idea as Sola Scriptura.

Catholic Truths: Ecumenical Apologetics. Sola Scriptura (http://catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html)

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.




In my opinion you can not ask this question... The church or temple would be Christ, and the ground truth again is Christ. So if you don't hear Christ the foundation of church we should be treated as heathen.. No question about that..



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

Why, if doing so is to disobey Scripture?

Has the church become a structure? Has the Sabbath become a day? Nay.. it should not be so..

Follow scripture is walking with Christ.. He is our Sabbath.. He is our Church.. He is the Word in scripture.

~In Chirst

In my opinion you can not ask this question... The church or temple would be Christ, and the ground truth again is Christ. So if you don't hear Christ the foundation of church we should be treated as heathen.. No question about that..

Yep like I said the Matt 17 is about falling away from the faith not the church (building).

RickJ,
Exceptionally well said.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes, one of the apostles in the bible says to falllow "the traditions I have taught you".
The bible its self is a tradition; written Scripture tradition.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I believe the differentiation is between Scriptural traditions and man's traditions
So we can argue throughout time about tradition but what IS backed up by scripture?
The Bible DOES warn against man made tradition taught as truth.

NoHelp4You,
Which man's tradition is the problem. Jesus and his apostles were men.
It is their tradition that I rely on, not that of others who want to discard their traditional teachings as mentioned in the bible and in later writings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

So whose to say what traditions are acceptable and what ones are not if a church can just make traditions and doctrines. Any religion or cult should be able to make up traditions because the apostles were men and taught tradition?

I already replied above with a list.

Should we say man made church traditions and teaching. I follow in Christ Word, and in Christ teaching.

In Acts Peter told who they followed when they were brought before the council and the high priest.
KJV Acts 5:27-29 And when they had brought them, they set [them] before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

The spiritual component IS the MAIN thing I take into consideration.

Ok.


Traditions of man

Are you saying that all traditions of men are wrong? For instance, I don't see "altar calls" in the Scriptures. Are they wrong?

And you haven't commented on the fact that you believe Sola Scriptura, yet it is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Why don't you consider that a tradition of men?


The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15).

All that is true. But Christ also gave the Church authority over all men:
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. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And even over heaven:
1 Corinthians 6 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world?


Fish Friday -Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed
Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish.

That isn't true. Fish are prevalent in Christian theology because Jesus Christ multiplied and because the Greek word for fish, Ichthius was used as code for Jesus Christ God.
The first letter I stands for Jesus (Greek form Iesu) and the C for Christ and thius for Theos which means God. In other words, IC Theos or JC God.

Fasting is of course in imitation of Christ fasting in the desert and in obedience to His prophecy:

Matthew 9 15 And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.


some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3).


None of these Scriptures which you referenced speak of fasting. So please explain the commection which you make.


Praying to Mary -The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church (Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)

Praying is communication with God. But from antiquity it also meant to request from men. That is why we still occasionally hear a phrase such as "I pray, pass the butter." That doesn't mean you are adoring the person passing the butter. It means you are requesting the butter.

Praying to to Mary for intercession is exactly that kind of prayer. And it recognizes the fact that Jesus Christ was the first to "pray" (i.e. request) from Mary things which benefited His life. He was her little boy. Therefore He, by definition had to ask her for sustenance, for hugs, kisses, and many other things which children require of their mothers.

And we imitate Jesus.

But more, we also imitate Scripture. Scripture attests that God sent an Angel with a prayer of praise to Mary:

Luke 1 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The Scriptures also record that a Saint also praised Mary:
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

These are the words of Angels and Saints recorded in Scripture. And Scripture is the Word of God therefore these are the words of God who inspired them. If God wills that Angels and Saints praise Mary, why do you do less?

If Jesus Himself asked her for material goods, why would you do less?


Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

The only way to miss this appointment is if you ignore the Spirit of the Scriptures.

Let us examine the chief appointment verse.

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 has renamed Simon, Cephas or Rock:
John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

And we know that the only Rock in Scripture previously was God Himself. Therefore Jesus has given Simon the name which represents God.

Has this ever happened before? Well yes. God appointed a man before to represent Him before other men. That man was 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.


Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome,

History records that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome and was there martyred. Only recent anti-Catholic rhetoric has begun to question what has for centuries been accepted as truth.


much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

Where? Please provide the reference so I can confirm this isn't simply made up. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to anti-Catholic propaganda. In the meantime, lets see what another contemporary had to say:

Irenaeus states: "Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter" (AGAINST HERESIES 3, 1, 1).


Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2).

That is true. And the Church also calls every believer Priest, every believer King and every believer Saint.

But there are certain believers who allegedly do miraculous things. And in order not to quench the Spirit, the Church tries them to see if they are good. And if they are good, they are canonized as Saints:

Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.


Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III. in the Lateran Council
The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9).
Confessing to the one you offended and refers to asking forgiveness and showing repentance. Not meant for confessing to Priest.

No, Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sin and the Apostles passed this power on to their successors:

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Scripture also says:
James 5 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.


The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1).

Sure there is. The Bible doesn't mention the word Trinity but teaches about the Trinity. In the same way, the word Purgatory is not in the Bible but it is taught in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 3 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.


The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX
The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).

Certainly Mary needed a Savior. But her salvation was much different than yours and ours. Let me ask you, would you rather be hit by a truck and saved by the physicians in the hospital? Or would you rather that someone warn you the truck is coming so you could avoid it?

Of course you would rather avoid it. And that is how Jesus saved His Mother. He saved her before she sinned.

In addition, Scripture does not say that Mary sinned. Anyone who says that is reading that into Scripture.

If you would like, we could start a detailed thread on any of those subjects. However, I believe they are beyond the scope of this thread. I'm wondering why people believe in Scripture alone when Scripture Itself says that one should believe in traditions by word and scripture and in the Church?

Sincerely,

De Maria

In my opinion you can not ask this question... The church or temple would be Christ, and the ground truth again is Christ. So if you don't hear Christ the foundation of church we should be treated as heathen.. No question about that..

That is true. But then why would some say that you must obey Scripture but you need not obey the Church? If the Church is Christ then we must obey the Church. And Scripture is clear, the Church is 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:

That is why Scripture says:

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.


Has the church become a structure?

Do you mean an organization? Yes. Jesus made it so. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth but it is also the Kingdom of God on earth. With authority and power over our souls.


Has the Sabbath become a day? Nay.. it should not be so..

The Sabbath has always been the Seventh day. That is what Sabbath means. Seven. But the Sabbath also represents our resting in Christ. And yes, we enter shall enter that rest when when we rest from our labors on that day:

Hebrews 4 3 For we, who have believed, shall enter into rest; as he said: As I have sworn in my wrath; If they shall enter into my rest; and this indeed when the works from the foundation of the world were finished.


Follow scripture is walking with Christ.. He is our Sabbath.. He is our Church.. He is the Word in scripture.

Why do you reduce Christ to Scripture? Where does Scripture reduce Christ to Scripture?

Jesus is the Word of God but the Word of God is carried in our hearts, in our actions, our prayers, our ceremonies, our doctrines, in short in our Traditions. Including the Tradition of Scripture. But not in Scripture alone.


~In Chirst

In His Peace,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ok.
Are you saying that all traditions of men are wrong? For instance, I don't see "altar calls" in the Scriptures. Are they wrong?
Would be interested in your view on altar calls.


And you haven't commented on the fact that you believe Sola Scriptura, yet it is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Why don't you consider that a tradition of men?
Rick covered that pretty well.


All that is true. But Christ also gave the Church authority over all men:
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. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And even over heaven:
1 Corinthians 6 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world?
How does that make Peter representative of the teachings the church has initiated since his death?


That isn't true. Fish are prevalent in Christian theology because Jesus Christ multiplied and because the Greek word for fish, Ichthius was used as code for Jesus Christ God.
The first letter I stands for Jesus (Greek form Iesu) and the C for Christ and thius for Theos which means God. In other words, IC Theos or JC God.

Yes you can interpret it that way just as we interpret Christmas, Easter and pagan holidays as okay because the church has intertwined the beliefs. But where does Jesus or the Bible say to not eat meat on lent Fridays?


Fasting is of course in imitation of Christ fasting in the desert and in obedience to His prophecy:

Matthew 9 15 And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.

None of these Scriptures which you referenced speak of fasting. So please explain the connection which you make.

No problem with fasting. It IS in the Bible was referring to the fish thing.



Praying is communication with God. But from antiquity it also meant to request from men. That is why we still occasionally hear a phrase such as "I pray, pass the butter." That doesn't mean you are adoring the person passing the butter. It means you are requesting the butter.

Praying to to Mary for intercession is exactly that kind of prayer. And it recognizes the fact that Jesus Christ was the first to "pray" (i.e. request) from Mary things which benefited His life. He was her little boy. Therefore He, by definition had to ask her for sustenance, for hugs, kisses, and many other things which children require of their mothers.

And we imitate Jesus.

But more, we also imitate Scripture. Scripture attests that God sent an Angel with a prayer of praise to Mary:

Luke 1 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The Scriptures also record that a Saint also praised Mary:
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

These are the words of Angels and Saints recorded in Scripture. And Scripture is the Word of God therefore these are the words of God who inspired them. If God wills that Angels and Saints praise Mary, why do you do less?


If Jesus Himself asked her for material goods, why would you do less?


Blessing, praising, asking and praying are different things and the Bible even rebuked praying to Mary. The Bible says there is ONE intercessor.


The only way to miss this appointment is if you ignore the Spirit of the Scriptures.

Let us examine the chief appointment verse.

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 has renamed Simon, Cephas or Rock:
John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

And we know that the only Rock in Scripture previously was God Himself. Therefore Jesus has given Simon the name which represents God.

Has this ever happened before? Well yes. God appointed a man before to represent Him before other men. That man was 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.



History records that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome and was there martyred. Only recent anti-Catholic rhetoric has begun to question what has for centuries been accepted as truth.



Where? Please provide the reference so I can confirm this isn't simply made up. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to anti-Catholic propaganda. In the meantime, lets see what another contemporary had to say:

Irenaeus states: "Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter" (AGAINST HERESIES 3, 1, 1).



That is true. And the Church also calls every believer Priest, every believer King and every believer Saint.

But there are certain believers who allegedly do miraculous things. And in order not to quench the Spirit, the Church tries them to see if they are good. And if they are good, they are canonized as Saints:

Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.



No, Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sin and the Apostles passed this power on to their successors:

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Scripture also says:
James 5 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.



Sure there is. The Bible doesn't mention the word Trinity but teaches about the Trinity. In the same way, the word Purgatory is not in the Bible but it is taught in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 3 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.



Certainly Mary needed a Savior. But her salvation was much different than yours and ours. Let me ask you, would you rather be hit by a truck and saved by the physicians in the hospital? Or would you rather that someone warn you the truck is coming so you could avoid it?

Of course you would rather avoid it. And that is how Jesus saved His Mother. He saved her before she sinned.

In addition, Scripture does not say that Mary sinned. Anyone who says that is reading that into Scripture.

If you would like, we could start a detailed thread on any of those subjects. However, I believe they are beyond the scope of this thread. I'm wondering why people believe in Scripture alone when Scripture Itself says that one should believe in traditions by word and scripture and in the Church?

Sincerely,

De Maria

So what are the teaching of Peter that we are to follow?

The scripture says the Church is Christ
So my church is Christ and it does not teach many of those traditions and doctrines
My friends church is Jehovah Witness and their church does not teach most of those traditions and doctrines.

would be interested in your view on altar calls.

As I understand an altar call, the minister calls for people in the congregation to come before the altar and make a commitment to Christ. I don't see that in Scripture. But perhaps you could point it out to me.


Rick covered that pretty well.

Rick's pretty knowledgeable. Have you been to his website?


How does that make Peter representative of the teachings the church has initiated since his death?

The office of Peter has been passed on:

Acts Of Apostles 1 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

2 Timothy 2 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.


Yes you can interpret it that way just as we interpret Christmas, Easter and pagan holidays as okay because the church has intertwined the beliefs. But where does Jesus or the Bible say to not eat meat on lent Fridays?



No problem with fasting. It IS in the Bible was referring to the fish thing.

The Bible doesn't mention that to my knowledge. It is a discipline imposed by the Church in remembrance of Christ.


Blessing, praising, asking and praying are different things and the Bible even rebuked praying to Mary.

Really? Where and when?


The Bible says there is ONE intercessor.

True. But if we read the Spirit of the Scripture, the Bible is asking all to intercede:

1 Tim 2: 1 I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: 2 For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

Romans 8 34 Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died, yea that is risen also again; who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

We are all intercessors by God's grace. Jesus is the One Intercessor by nature.


so what are the teaching of Peter that we are to follow?

The teachings of Christ.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

Sincerely,

De Maria

I never claimed to go by scripture only but that everything should be able to be backed by scripture. I already replied with the traditions not always being of God.
"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Really? you have never seen fasting in the Bible?

Moses was the first recorded faster in the Bible.
Matthew 4:2 = And when he had fasted fourty days and fourty nights, he was
afterward an hungered.
Jesus said "when you fast" (Matthew 6:16)
Matthew 6:16 = Moreover when ye fast be not, as the hypocrites,
of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men
to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Notice, Jesus said when
you fast he expected and expects his followers to fast.

"Then the followers of John came to Jesus and said, 'Why do we and the Pharisees often fast for a certain time, but your followers don't?' Jesus answered, 'The friends of the bridegroom are not sad while he is with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.'" (Matthew 9:14-15).

Praying to Mary

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

Did you read any of the verses included with my post??

I think ONE of the verses used for altar call is 'let the children come unto me' and we are God's children,


So what are the teaching of Peter that we are to follow?

The teachings of Christ.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

That didn't tell me anything

I never claimed to go by scripture only

Great! Sorry for the misunderstanding.


but that everything should be able to be backed by scripture.

Excellent! That is, in fact, Catholic Teaching. The difference as I've noted between nonCatholics and Catholics is that nonCatholics want everything explained in Scripture. Whereas for us, doctrines must be "consistent with" Scripture.

For instance, Purgatory and the Trinity are not expressly explained in Scripture. But they are consistent with Scripture.


I already replied with the traditions not always being of God.
"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Correct. "not always" being the key words. Sometimes, traditions are consistent with and in accordance with Scripture.


Really? You have never seen fasting in the Bible?

I can see where that was confusing. If you remember, we fast during Lent in imitation of Jesus fasting in the desert. I meant that I have not seen in the Bible where anyone is required to eat fish on Fridays. That is a Church discipline.


Praying to Mary

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

Did you read any of the verses included with my post??


Unless you write them out and explain how you interpret them as I do for you, I don't go searching the Bible and trying to figure out what you mean or how you arrive at that conclusion. That is too much work.

I also posted Scripture for you about Mary and I explained how we interpret it. But you seem to have ignored them.

Anyway, as we understand the verse you've posted above, Jesus is the One Mediator by nature. But we are also mediators by His grace. We bring people to Christ.

James 5 19 My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: 20 He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

In other words, no one gets to the Father but through Christ. That is why we lead everyone to Christ.


I think ONE of the verses used for altar call is 'let the children come unto me' and we are God's children,

But I don't see those children required to make a commitment when they come to Christ. It seems totally unrelated to the practice of altar calls.

And yet I don't see anything wrong with it. It is a doctrine of men which does not contradict Scripture nor God's Commandments. The fact that it is not in Scripture does not automatically make it wrong.


1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

That didn't tell me anything

An Apostle is one who is sent by Christ to teach what Christ taught.

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Did you think that we follow Peter because he taught something other than what Christ taught?

No.

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 84 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/84.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

The scripture says the Church is Christ
so my church is Christ and it does not teach many of those traditions and doctrines
My friends church is Jehovah Witness and their church does not teach most of those traditions and doctrines.

Based on some evidence you arrived at the conclusion that the various Churches are Christ. But the Bible says that Christ is not divided. Christ is one. And He made one Church which taught one faith:

Ephesians 4 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling.

Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Romans 12 5 So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

So, based on that evidence I searched for the one Church which is considered the most ancient. Since Christ only made one Church, that must be the one which Christ made.

That is why I believe in the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So you are saying Catholic church is the ONE and only church??

That is your believe by what you have been taught as Cred0 would say.

I have not seen where you can back up a lot of what you believe with the Bible.
You seem to simply trust what the leaders of the church have declared and you take it as the gospel truth. I see too many contradictions in what you believe and I have pointed SOME of them out.

So you are saying Catholic church is the ONE and only church??

That is what I believe after studying all the evidence.


That is your believe by what you have been taught as Cred0 would say.

I admit I was taught. After all, it isn't as though I knew Jesus when He was walking the earth with the Apostles.

Is there something wrong with being taught? Weren't you taught?


I have not seen where you can back up a lot of what you believe with the Bible.

I thought I did a pretty good job.


You seem to simply trust what the leaders of the church have declared and you take it as the gospel truth.

Since Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and I believe Scripture. I have no problem believing the Church.


I see too many contradictions in what you believe and I have pointed SOME of them out.

Yes, you did point out what you saw as contradictions. I sought to explain why they aren't. If the explanation was not convincing, so be it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The explanations were not convincing because the topics themselves were not backed up with the Bible but that just because you and the Catholic Church believes they are the only true church that Popes can make rules throughout the years even if they do not line up with the Bible.

Fish, altar calls, the Trinity and some other things have some Biblical basis argued for or against by various churches, but I do not see many of the other things fitting in what the Bible says. In fact contrary to what the Bible teaches.

The explanations were not convincing because the topics themselves were not backed up with the Bible

I believe I did back them up with Scripture.


but that just because you and the Catholic Church believes they are the only true church that Popes can make rules throughout the years even if they do not line up with the Bible.

I believe they do line up with Scripture. And I believe I have shown how.


Fish, altar calls, the Trinity and some other things have some Biblical basis argued for or against by various churches, but I do not see many of the other things fitting in what the Bible says. In fact contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Well, you claim not to believe in the Bible alone. And that is good because I think that doctrine is definitely against what the Bible teaches.

But, I'm willing if you are, to compare my Catholic beliefs to your Assembly of God doctrines and see which line up with Scripture.

For instance, do you believe that the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? I do.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I did not say I believe everything that the Assemblies of God teach but that they seem closest to what I believe the Bible teaches.
I am not even trying to argue which is right the trinity or not, the eucharist or symbol of the flesh and blood or anything like which do you believe and not believe but where do you see it backed up by the Bible.

What verses prove the church is Catholic?
What verses say it is okay to pray through Mary?
What verses back up the rosary?

NOHelp4u,
That is not what I meant.
I was speaking of Jesus Christ's teachings all of which are not in the bible as the bible its self tells us.
The apostles Jesus taught by word and deed taught others those things and they were recorded in letters and documents which were not included in the bible. They are often referred to as writings of The Church Fathers or oral tradition.
Discussions about who taught where, what they taught, about baptism, about Mary, about Easter, about when Jesus was born and much more including the Apostles' Creed are in those documents.
A list of those documents can be found at this site
Early Church Fathers (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html)

Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I did not say I believe everything that the Assemblies of God teach but that they seem closest to what I believe the Bible teaches.

Then I think the Catholic doctrine of the authority of the Church fits Bible teaching better than your attitude towards your Church which seems completely unbiblical. Unless you can show me a Scripture which says you should not believe the Church.

Scripture says:
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.

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

This is also what the Catholic Church teaches. Therefore, since the Catholic Church teaching lines up with Scripture. I believe it.


I am not even trying to argue which is right the trinity or not, the eucharist or symbol of the flesh and blood or anything like which do you believe and not believe but where do you see it backed up by the Bible.

And what I'm trying to do is level the playing field. You claim that our beliefs don't line up with Scripture. So, then show me your beliefs in Scripture. Lets compare and see which line up better.


what verses prove the church is Catholic?

There are many. The Church described in Scripture gives us our daily bread. The Catholic Church does so today:

Luke 11 3 Give us this day our daily bread.
Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

Does the Assemblies of God break bread daily?

The Catholic Church has priests who accept your confession and forgive your sins:
John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Does the Assemblies of God?

The Catholic Church teaches prayer in the name of Prophets and Saints:
Matthew 10 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man.

Luke 16 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me,.

Does the Assemblies of God teach that prayer in the name of a Prophet is efrcacious?


what verses say it is okay to pray through Mary?

Along with those above about praying in the name of prophets, we also have the verse where Jesus give His mother to us:

John 19 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.


what verses back up the rosary?

The Bible condemns vain repetition. But the Rosary is an example of effective repetition. It is a prayer composed of Scripture verses and Scripture meditiations. And yes, they are repetitive. Jesus said:

5 And he said to them: Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight, and shall say to him: Friend, lend me three loaves,

Luke 11:6 Because a friend of mine is come off his journey to me, and I have not what to set before him. 7 And he from within should answer, and say: Trouble me not, the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. 8 Yet if he shall continue knocking, I say to you, although he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend; yet, because of his importunity, he will rise, and give him as many as he needeth. 9 And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.

Therefore Jesus wants you to repeat your prayers persistently.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Receiving prophets and Mary is not the same as praying to them.
I do not see where you get that.
It meant receiving them into your house and receiving their teaching

De Maria,
That was excellent!
Don't forget that Jesus founded what He call My Church with Peter as it's first leader and the bible called it The Church which name was later changed to The Catholic Church to identify it from others who tried to call themselves a church.
That is biblical and actual hisorty.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Receiving prophets and Mary is not the same as praying to them.
I do not see where you get that.
It meant receiving them into your house and receiving their teaching

The words, "in the name of a prophet" do not insinuate receiving into your house. They insinuate making a petition to God in their name.

De Maria,
That was excellent!
Don't forget that Jesus founded what He call My Church with Peter as it's first leader and the bible called it The Church which name was later changed to The Catholic Church to identify it from others who tried to call themselves a church.
That is biblical and actual hisorty.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I would love to see the exact history on that.

De Maria,
That was excellent!
Don't forget that Jesus founded what He call My Church with Peter as it's first leader and the bible called it The Church which name was later changed to The Catholic Church to identify it from others who tried to call themselves a church.
That is biblical and actual hisorty.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Thanks Arcura. I'm sleepy so I'm going to bed now. But I look forward to reading more of your messages in the future.

Good night and God be with you,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Insinuates making a petition to God in their name.

I looked up on the search engine receiving a prophet meaning to pray in the name of the prophet and all I got were Islam sites.

NOHelp4u.
Jesus teaches us that the saints and prophets are not dead. The Apostle's Creed tell us of the communion of saints. That is mortal saints (Christians) communication with those who have passed over to the other heavenly life.
Here are some bible passages to help you with that.
Mk 12:26-27... "not God of the dead, but of the living."
Jn 15:1-8... vine and its branches.
1 Cor 12:25-27; Rom 12:4-5... body of Christ.
Eph 6:18; Rom 15:30; Col 4:3; 1 Thess 1:11... intercessory prayer.
Jos 5:14; Dan 8:17; Tob 12:16... veneration of angels united with God (Mt 18:10).
1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2... saints also united with God.
Lk 20-34-38... those who died are like angels.
2 Mac 15:11-16... deceased Onias and Jeremiah interceded for Jews.
Rev 8:3-4; Jer 15:1... saints' intercession.

Then I can pray through any Christian that died because saints are any of God's children.

NOHelp4u,
There are several sources of good, accurate Church history. Her is one of them.
History of the Roman Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)
Note that in that it shows that In the year 110 A.D.: Ignatius of Antioch first recorded use of the term Catholic Church in a letter to the Church at Smyrna.
Prior to that it was called by its biblical name "The Church" or as Jesus called it "My Church".
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

That is true. But then why would some say that you must obey Scripture but you need not obey the Church? If the Church is Christ then we must obey the Church. And Scripture is clear, the Church is Christ:

The scripture is clear in saying the church is those who believe in Christ, and the foundation of the church is built on the Rock which is Christ.
Hebrew 3:1-6 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. For this [man] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some [man]; but he that built all things [is] God. And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Note the ( If ) we hold fast

1 Corinthains 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was 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:


Let's read further on this because I trust it will give more awareness to Truth as to what Paul was actually saying: KJV Colossians 1:23-25 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;24 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, which is the church: 25 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;

Paul will do all that is asked of him to assure that Christ and all Christ gave us, is apart of the church that Paul is teaching, according to God's command to Paul. The fulfillment of the Word of God.



That is why Scripture says:

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.

[B]KJV Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

This becomes the choice of who you or I obey, and submit to.

Proverbs 6:21-23 Bind them continually upon thine heart, [and] tie them about thy neck. 22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and [when] thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.23 For the commandment [is] a lamp; and the law [is] light; and reproofs of instruction [are] the way of life:




Do you mean an organization? Yes. Jesus made it so. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth but it is also the Kingdom of God on earth. With authority and power over our souls.

In 1 Corinthians 3, Apostle Paul's teachings are concerning the foundation of the church. And how that foundation was set in Christ Jesus and not man. Verse 17 of chapter 3 goes on to say if any man defile the Temple of God, he shall God destroy; for the Temple of God is holy. Verse 18 of chapter 3 states let no man deceive himself by thinking that
What seems to be wise in the world or lets say if you are street smart, let him be a fool. Because you fail to be wise in God's love. Verse 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Verse 21 So let no man glory in men. 22 For all things present and things to come are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.( Ezekiel 18:4 All souls belong to God )
1 Corinthains 4:1 Let all men minster of Christ, and teach the mysteries of God.






Why do you reduce Christ to Scripture? Where does Scripture reduce Christ to Scripture?

Jesus is the Word of God but the Word of God is carried in our hearts, in our actions, our prayers, our ceremonies, our doctrines, in short in our Traditions. Including the Tradition of Scripture. But not in Scripture alone.

Understand that to me, this was you putting a stumbling stone before me. Your authority over what I trust as Christ in my heart. His Word, His Body, All that God commanded.. And I would never reduce Christ.

Proverbs 24:3-4 (KJV):Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

Exodus 8: 10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God.

2 Timothy 2:15: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

1 Timothy 4: 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.


Hosea 4:6a: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

NOHelp4u,
That is not what I meant.
I was speaking of Jesus Christ's teachings all of which are not in the bible as the bible its self tells us.
The apostles Jesus taught by word and deed taught others those things and they were recorded in letters and documents which were not included in the bible. They are often referred to as writings of The Church Fathers or oral tradition.
Discussions about who taught where, what they taught, about baptism, about Mary, about Easter, about when Jesus was born and much more including the Apostles' Creed are in those documents.
A list of those documents can be found at this site
Early Church Fathers (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html)

Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I don't understand the link. Where does it prove that Peter was the first Pope and
Where does it show that he passed *it* on down through the Catholic Church?
Where does it prove that Catholics are the ONE and only true church?

Any Proof I have ever seen doesn't seem to prove any more to me than John Smith's proof that he was handed down tablets and they were of God.

Where does it prove that Catholics are the ONE and only true church?

This is not the way I like to use the terms.

There is but one Church... period. All believers are members, however the doctrine and practices of the Catholic and Orthodox Church best represent historical Christianity.

Based on some evidence you arrived at the conclusion that the various Churches are Christ. But the Bible says that Christ is not divided. Christ is one. And He made one Church which taught one faith:

Ephesians 4 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling.

Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Romans 12 5 So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

So, based on that evidence I searched for the one Church which is considered the most ancient. Since Christ only made one Church, that must be the one which Christ made.

That is why I believe in the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I take it with statements (throughout this post and others) like the one I highlighted that De Maria believes the Catholics believe THEY are the ONE and ONLY true church.

NOhelp4u
Scripture tells us that Jesus established The Church with Peter as its first leader.
The book of acts shows us the how apostolic succession took place and that now continues to today.
IF you had read all of the documents listed on that link that I provided you would have see historic evidence of The Church and its people and activities that took place in the early centuries.
That Peter was the first leader who served in Rome and who followed him and much more.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I couldn't understand the documents.

I couldn't even find where it shows where, when and how it was passed on from Peter.

Here is a links page that gives some good historical/biblical info on Apostolic Succession/Church/Papacy:

Catholic Answers: Library: Church & Papacy (http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp)

I understand that Peter was the rock of THE Church
I am not seeing where THE Church IS Catholic and directly linked to Peter.

"catholic" is just a word - initially used as an adjective, not a noun as it is mostly used now.

The first known use of the term "the catholic church" was about 110 A.D.; in a letter from an early Christian leader, Ignatius, to the [Church of the] Smyrnaeans:

"...even as where Jesus may be, there is the katholike ekklesia"... katholike ekklesia is translated "universal church" or "the catholic church" or "the one and only church".

For the full text of the letter, click here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm). All Christians can enjoy reading what Christian leaders of the generation following the Apostles wrote.

By the beginning of the 4th century, the descriptive "catholic" became the popular name of the Church of the Christians: The Catholic Church.

... which is what Christ's Church was known as, universally, for a millennia and more.

I understand that Peter was the rock of THE Church
I am not seeing where THE Church IS Catholic and directly linked to Peter.

My opinion would be Christ is the Rock..

1 Corinthains 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The Bible does say Peter is the Rock of the Church but does it really specify A church IF it is even meant as a denomination. I lose the connection there.

The Catholic Church teaches that Peter is the Rock... And it was brought forth out of the following verses. The18 verse says upon this rock, and the church takes this as saying Peter is the rock. In my opinion this is false... Scripture states that Christ is the Rock..

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Matthew 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Yeah

The Bible does say Peter is the Rock of the Church but does it really specify A church IF it is even meant as a denomination. I lose the connection there.

I would have to know where in scripture anyone says directly that Peter is the rock?

I also would like to know if so much importance is placed on this reading in Peter, then why don't be continue where Jesus rebukes Peter and says get behind me satan..

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day
Matthew 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mathew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Point of Fact: 2 Timothy 2:15: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Yeah I understand what you mean.
When Biblical peoples names were changed like Abram and Paul the name has a significant meaning but I don't see where it means he IS the rock in the sense of taking over Jesus being the rock and I don't see it as meaning any denomination either.

The words in the Greek tell the story.

Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,(apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:
KJV-- Peter, rock. Compare 2786.) and upon this rock (4073 petra (pet'-ra);
Feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):
KJV-- rock.I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(KJV)

The words in the parenthesis is the definition of the Greek word used (Strong's Concordance) Petrus (Peter) is piece of rock: Petra (this rock) is a massive rock. Don't confuse the two.

I believe I did back them up with Scripture.



I believe they do line up with Scripture. And I believe I have shown how.



Well, you claim not to believe in the Bible alone. And that is good because I think that doctrine is definitely against what the Bible teaches.

But, I'm willing if you are, to compare my Catholic beliefs to your Assembly of God doctrines and see which line up with Scripture.

For instance, do you believe that the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? I do.

Sincerely,

De Maria

It impossible that the bread and wine of the Eucharist can be literal BECAUSE at the time He said "This is my body, this is my blood" His body was still intact and alive and His blood was still in His veins. Such being the case, to say His statement was literal is obviously wrong. Besides, the Bible specifically forbids the eating of blood under any circumstaces, even animal blood.

Before you can have a succession, there must be a first, so consider the following:

Matt 23:9-12
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
(KJV)

Jesus reprimanded His Apostles for trying to place them in a position above others. The Pope claims to be THE vicar of Christ, yet the Bible teaches that the CHURCH is the body (vicar) of Christ, of which all followers of Christ are members.

Vs 9 above: The Pope is called THE holy father in contidiction of this verse.


1 Tim 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(KJV)

Peter was a married man.

When Paul wrote his lettere from Rome, he named several believers that were also in Rome, and he did not mention Peter even once. Is it reasonable to think that if Peter was there, Paul would have mentioned him, and especially if Peter was the first Pope?

And finally, what resemblance to the church described in the early chapters of Acts, do you see in the Roman Catholic Church?

And finally, what resemblance to the church described in the early chapters of Acts, do you see in the Roman Catholic Church?

Exactly why I believe my denominational preference is closer to THE Church.

The words in the Greek tell the story.

Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,(apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:
KJV-- Peter, rock. Compare 2786.) and upon this rock (4073 petra (pet'-ra);
feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):
KJV-- rock.I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(KJV)

The words in the parenthesis is the definition of the Greek word used (Strong's Concordance) Petrus (Peter) is piece of rock: Petra (this rock) is a massive rock. Don't confuse the two.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Point of Fact: Jesus say Simon/Peter is blessed because he was not revealed the truth of who Jesus was by Man=flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven

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

Point of Fact : note the ( , ) after Peter, and upon this rock (what rock? The Rock Jesus, who he had just had revealed to him by the Father. The church is built upon the foundation/Rock of Jesus.
I have the Strong Concordance and the Greek /Hebrew to refer.. But one still has to Open their mind to hearing God.

At any rate Jesus is the rock, Peter is a piece of the rock and we are all a part of the church,
A study on the cornerstone and the verses on us all being a part of the body shows that.

The words in the Greek tell the story.

Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,(apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:
KJV-- Peter, rock. Compare 2786.) and upon this rock (4073 petra (pet'-ra);
feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):
KJV-- rock.I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(KJV)

The words in the parenthesis is the definition of the Greek word used (Strong's Concordance) Petrus (Peter) is piece of rock: Petra (this rock) is a massive rock. Don't confuse the two.

Point of facts are true... As shown below each word has been locked in by safe keeping # This safe keeping is called the Massorah. The verse: Matthew 16:18 And 1161 I say 3004 also 2504 unto thee 4671, That 3754 thou 4771 art 1488 Peter 4074, and 2532 upon 1909 this 5026 rock 4073 I will build 3618 my 3450 church 1577; and 2532 the gates 4439 of hell 86 shall 2729 0 not 3756 prevail against 2729 it 846.

4073 Petra = cliff, ledge, entirely

4074 Petros = piece of rock

1 Corinthians 10:4 And 2532 did 4095 0 all 3956 drink 4095 the same 846 spiritual 4152 drink 4188: for 1063 they drank 4095 of 1537 that spiritual 4152 Rock 4073 that followed them 190 : and 1161 that Rock 4073 was 2258 Christ 5547.

Point of Fact: The Rock was Jesus

Point of facts are true...

I want to thank all of you for such a wonderful and polite discussion. I hope it will be ongoing when I return, God willing, in eight days.

I'll contribute a little bit before I leave.

I would love to see the exact history on that.

Sure:
These are books:
Founding Of Christendom - A History Of Christendom, Vol. 1 (http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Store.ItemDetails/SKU/2771/affiliate/catholicpage4375/T/3)
Building Of Christendom - A History Of Christendom, Vol. 2 (http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Store.ItemDetails/SKU/2772/affiliate/catholicpage4375/T/3)
Glory Of Christendom - A History Of Christendom, Vol. 3 (http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Store.ItemDetails/SKU/2773/affiliate/catholicpage4375/T/3)
Cleaving Of Christendom - A History Of Christendom, Vol. 4 (http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Store.ItemDetails/SKU/2769/affiliate/catholicpage4375/T/3)

This is a website with a summary of Church History:
http://www.marianland.com/truech01.html

Thanks for the interest.

Sincerely,

De Maria

If this is so why isn't in the book of Acts?

St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time.

Then I can pray through any Christian that died because saints are any of God's children.

We don't believe we can make that judgement independently of the Church.

You see, the Scriptures say that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

The Scriptures also say that not all Christians will go to heaven:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven:...

The Scriptures also say that we can't even judge ourselves only God can read hearts:
1 Corinthians 4 3 But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man's day; but neither do I judge my own self. 4 For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.

Therefore, since we can't judge but since the Church is infallible, the Church may judge:
Ephesians 3 10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,

1 Corinthians 6 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world?

And even the Church does not take this judgement lightly. First the person's history is studied to see if he is deserving of prayer. At that point he is considered blessed. Then after many years and proof that prayers to God have been answered in this Saint's name, then perhaps they are canonized as Saints.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Doesn't make sense to me. Seems the Church made that 'judgment' independently of the Bible.
The Bible doesn't say for man to evaluate one Christian more highly than the other. In fact it speaks the opposite.

I like your passion and your faith. But I don't see the answer to my question.

Why do some say we may disobey the Church?


The scripture is clear in saying the church is those who believe in Christ, and the foundation of the church is built on the Rock which is Christ.
Hebrew 3:1-6 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. For this [man] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some [man]; but he that built all things [is] God. And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Note the ( If ) we hold fast

1 Corinthains 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Ok, but how does that answer my question? Weren't you addressing this statement of mine?

That is true. But then why would some say that you must obey Scripture but you need not obey the Church? If the Church is Christ then we must obey the Church. And Scripture is clear, the Church is Christ:

Essentially you are equating the Church and Christ. If that is so, that means that we must be obedient to the Church since we must be obedient to Christ.


Let's read further on this because I trust it will give more awareness to Truth as to what Paul was actually saying: KJV Colossians 1:23-25 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;24 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, which is the church: 25 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;

Paul will do all that is asked of him to assure that Christ and all Christ gave us, is apart of the church that Paul is teaching, according to God's command to Paul. The fulfillment of the Word of God.



[B]KJV Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

This becomes the choice of who you or I obey, and submit to.

Proverbs 6:21-23 Bind them continually upon thine heart, [and] tie them about thy neck. 22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and [when] thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.23 For the commandment [is] a lamp; and the law [is] light; and reproofs of instruction [are] the way of life:

That is true. But even in the Old Testament, God willed obedience to men. That is why He sent the Prophets. That is why He apponted Moses:

Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

Do you think that God wanted the people to disregard Moses or the Prophets?

If not, why then do you now believe we must disregard the Church?


In 1 Corinthians 3, Apostle Paul's teachings are concerning the foundation of the church. And how that foundation was set in Christ Jesus and not man. Verse 17 of chapter 3 goes on to say if any man defile the Temple of God, he shall God destroy; for the Temple of God is holy. Verse 18 of chapter 3 states let no man deceive himself by thinking that
What seems to be wise in the world or lets say if you are street smart, let him be a fool. Because you fail to be wise in God's love. Verse 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Verse 21 So let no man glory in men. 22 For all things present and things to come are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.( Ezekiel 18:4 All souls belong to God )
1 Corinthains 4:1 Let all men minster of Christ, and teach the mysteries of God.


Again, if Christ founded the Church, why disregard the Church?


Understand that to me, this was you putting a stumbling stone before me.

I wonder why?

I am simply going by Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture say that we must follow the Bible alone. In fact, it seems categorically to say we must follow the Church.

As for me, if I follow the Church it is because Scripture says so.

There are some who say the Church is spiritual and can't be found. But Matt 18:17 categorically states that we can find It. And we can hear it. And if we don't believe it and honor it, we must be treated as heathen.


Your authority over what I trust as Christ in my heart. His Word, His Body, All that God commanded.. And I would never reduce Christ.

Proverbs 24:3-4 (KJV):Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

Exodus 8: 10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God.

2 Timothy 2:15: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

1 Timothy 4: 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.


Hosea 4:6a: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

Yet you seem to be reducing the Word of God to Scripture. Whereas Scripture recognizes that the Word of God is passed on by word of mouth and by tradition as well as Scripture.

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

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

Don't think that I am trying to convert you to my way of thinking. However, it is frequently alleged that Catholics don't follow the Scriptures because we obey the Church. But it seems clear to me that in obeying the Church we are obeying the Word of God in Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Doesn't make sense to me. Seems the Church made that 'judgment' independently of the Bible.
The Bible doesn't say for man to evaluate one Christian more highly than the other. In fact it speaks the opposite.

Certain Scriptures tell indivicuals not to judge.

But Christ gave the Church the power to bind and loose and to forgive and retain sins.

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Therefore, we believe the Church is given the right to judge each individual.

And it seems the Church was very comfortable with the idea of judgement since the Apostles very early on did so:

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

Acts 8
18 And when Simon saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him: 20 Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter. For thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Do penance therefore for this thy wickedness; and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. 23 For I see thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity.

1 Timothy 1 20 Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Acts Of Apostles 5 3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? 4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So The Church (Catholic) is Christ therefore we are to have faith that whatever the Popes declare to be is to be even though there is no Biblical basis and even contradicted in Scripture because The Catholic Church is believed before the scripture?

Christ gave BELIEVERS the power to Bind and Loose so why do you want to give your God given powers over to the Church?

The church is to teach, instruct, edify and strengthen. Not impose rituals.

I like your passion and your faith. But I don't see the answer to my question.

Why do some say we may disobey the Church?

Essentially you are equating the Church and Christ. If that is so, that means that we must be obedient to the Church since we must be obedient to Christ.




I best answered your question by using scripture. And again I state firmly that the Bible is the Word of God written in scripture. I also made a statement using the scripture on Peter being told by the priest that he was not to speak of Christ and His blood. Peter replied that he would rather do as God has told him. There are several that call themselves a church.. there are members that attend these church... The question is which church has the foundation of Christ. And as Peter told the priest, He would follow the Word of God.

Now you tell me, Do you feel the priest felt he knew what Holy Sacred Text was saying better then what Peter knew in his heart?

Paul stated in Colossians which I already submitted to you by scripture refer: 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;






That is true. But even in the Old Testament, God willed obedience to men. That is why He sent the Prophets. That is why He apponted Moses:

Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

Do you think that God wanted the people to disregard Moses or the Prophets?

If not, why then do you now believe we must disregard the Church?



Again, if Christ founded the Church, why disregard the Church?


I am simply going by Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture say that we must follow the Bible alone. In fact, it seems categorically to say we must follow the Church.


You are asking the same question , and in my opinion you may not like what I find in my heart as Peter did, to be all the Truth.




As for me, if I follow the Church it is because Scripture says so.

There are some who say the Church is spiritual and can't be found. But Matt 18:17 categorically states that we can find It. And we can hear it. And if we don't believe it and honor it, we must be treated as heathen.


Hopefully you also find your church minister, according to the dispensation of God



Yet you seem to be reducing the Word of God to Scripture. Whereas Scripture recognizes that the Word of God is passed on by word of mouth and by tradition as well as Scripture.

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

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.


1 Peter 1: 17- 21And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.



Don't think that I am trying to convert you to my way of thinking. However, it is frequently alleged that Catholics don't follow the Scriptures because we obey the Church. But it seems clear to me that in obeying the Church we are obeying the Word of God in Scripture.



The Word of God warns us not to be deceived as Eve was by false teaching. I trust he fore told us all things for a very good reason. It was Satan who tempted Christ in twisted scriptures.. Answer: Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God
.Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

We don't believe we can make that judgement independently of the Church.

You see, the Scriptures say that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).


Therefore, since we can't judge but since the Church is infallible, the Church may judge:

Ephesians 3 10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,



Point of Interest:
The refer that you yourself have noted was a warning to the church. ( thou oughtest behave thyself )

KJV 1 Timothy 3:14-15 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 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.


AND You say the church is infallible? I believe we will let God judge how infallible "YOUR CHURCH" that you put before us really is.

Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

I am simply going by Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture say that we must follow the Bible alone. In fact, it seems categorically to say we must follow the Church.

As for me, if I follow the Church it is because Scripture says so.

There are some who say the Church is spiritual and can't be found. But Matt 18:17 categorically states that we can find It. And we can hear it. And if we don't believe it and honor it, we must be treated as heathen.


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.

Point of Fact: Matthew 18:17 has to do with if thy brother shall trespass against thee. And I do think the church is a servant to God in setting good moral for human character. They do that by ministering to God's Will.. Not man's! It is God's Word that is Jesus that has brought us forgiveness.. Not Man! Not the Church!



Yet you seem to be reducing the Word of God to Scripture. Whereas Scripture recognizes that the Word of God is passed on by word of mouth and by tradition as well as Scripture.


No it is not I that has reduce the Word of God.. It is you, and the authority you take liberty to place before me. Your conscience to believe that a church grants the children of God their judgement and forgiveness.. All power and liberty in my heart belongs to Christ.
I offer none of my own conscience / customs. As for church I am a christian, to follow Christ. I offer Christ and His Word. Again all power and libery to Christ forever and ever. Amen

Scripture speaks as the Two edged Sword cutting both ways because it is Christ, who is the Word of God.

1Corinthians 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Romans: Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way

(authority) Liberty may cause stumbling to others. So what you do may cause someone else harm! And to what has it credited you?

This is why I offered scriptures.. From there it is up to God as to what each person's own pure heart of love for God will receive and hear.

John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

All this shows the great division between the RC and the rest of Christendom. We simply do not believe that the RC is THE Church. We believe that the Scriptures are our complete guide for all things spiritual; that no man has the right to change or add to them.
I don't want to appear hateful, so let me state here that I do not hate Catholics, I see them as deceived.
I personally firmly believe that the RC is one of the oldest, largest cults in the world.
What did the first Church look like? Its members healed the sick supernaturally, cast out devils, raised the dead (In come cases). They were given directions from God via the Holy Spirit by tongues & interpretatiion or by word of prophecy. They knew things because the Holy Spirit told them. You only find such things today in the pentecostal movement. (I agree that it is sorely diminished from the Book of Acts, but there are remnants where these things still take place.) For Bible reference see 1 Corinthians Ch 12.

Several major things cause me to reject the RC as the Church.
1. Their rejection of Scripture as absolute authority.
2. Their deification of Mary. (I honor Mary for her unique position in God's plan)
3. Their doctrine of trans substantiation; that the wafer and wine are ACTUALLY the body and blood of Jesus. If it is indeed the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus, then it is an object of worship, and is a form of idolatry. (If you doubt it you need to read Charles Chiniquy's book)
Again, I repeat, I do not hate Catholics, and I find myself in agreement with DeMaria many times, but not here.

Several major things cause me to reject the RC as the Church.
1. Their rejection of Scripture as absolute authority.
2. Their deification of Mary. (I honor Mary for her unique position in God's plan)
3. Their doctrine of trans substantiation; that the wafer and wine are ACTUALLY the body and blood of Jesus. If it is indeed the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus, then it is an object of worship, and is a form of idolatry. (If you doubt it you need to read Charles Chiniquy's book)
Again, I repeat, I do not hate Catholics, and I find myself in agreement with DeMaria many times, but not here.

1. Scripture alone is not supported by Scripture alone. And the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture.
2. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is divine.
3. The early Christians understood the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

Also one of the issues I don't think was addressed was for the first several hundred years there was no official "scripture" one church may have had one or two writings, another church had 4 or 5 but 2 of them were not the ones that were finally on the approved list. And for the first 20 and 30 years there was no written word at all.

The Church was always the beleivers and the spoken word of God. The written word gives us the guidline to compare out conduct and actions by, and to compare the actions of others to be sure they are following the word of God. But it is easy to see from the scripture that the Church was for more than any written word.

Also one of the issues I don't think was addressed was for the first several hundred years there was no official "scripture" one church may have had one or two writings, another church had 4 or 5 but 2 of them were not the ones that were finally on the approved list. And for the first 20 and 30 years there was no written word at all.

We hear this a lot, but believers were never without scripture. For example:

2 Tim 3:14-15
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Yes, this refers to the OT, but note that even in the OT we have everything that we needed to know about the gospel. The NT provides clarity regarding the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the gospel but has not added anything which is not covered in the OT.

When Jesus Himself sought to validate a point of doctrine in discussion, where did He refer? To scripture. Do we then consider any source to be more authoritative than that which Jesus considered authoritative?

We are further commanded not to go beyond what was written:

1 Cor 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
NKJV

Yes, men may preach and may speak on doctrine, but no man is permitted to go beyond what is written.

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).[/I]

This is the first time I have seen or heard the Catholic view point applied this way. It has always been contary to what my friend that are Catholic tell me. And the Lurtheran church too, that I have known. My Catholic friends have always added that the priest of the church is the only one that can make the request in prayer. That is why going to any other Christian church leaves me out of receiving what Christ offered. Which I strongly disagree.
Is it likely that different division has occurred in the Catholic church that changes thes from one teaching to another? I have seen this placement within the Lurtheran church.

With all this discussion, Amen to the agreement, that we do not hate the Catholic church or any Christian teaching of Truth. The belief of our Lord and Savior Christ. And to causion the stumblingblock of another is a sin . Making unclean what God has cleaned.

sndbay,
Justin was a priest. He could consecrated the bread and wine so that the Holy Spirit would change it into the body and blood of Christ Jesus just as other priests can.
Jesus is the high priest and it was He who commanded His priests (apostles) to do that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

My opinion and belief of this would be as the scriptures tell us..

1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

We are to eat and digest this all as Truth of the sacrifice Christ made, and belief in knowing Christ was worthy in delivering us forgiveness.

Yeah it doesn't clearly state if it is literally transfigured in the Catholic sense or symbolically

By eating and drinking you are taking all in as being one in flesh with Christ.

Jesus talked of the water and drinking it. The water He had to offer.

sndbay,well said,'Here is what Jesus said...
John4:7. When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Give me something to drink."
8. His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.
9. The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew. How is it that you ask me, a Samaritan, for something to drink?", Jews, of course, do not associate with Samaritans.
10. Jesus replied to her:
If you only knew what God is offering
And who it is that is saying to you,
`Give me something to drink,"
you would have been the one to ask,
and he would have given you living water.

11. `You have no bucket, sir," she answered, "and the well is deep: how do you get this living water?
12. Are you a greater man than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself with his sons and his cattle?"
13. Jesus replied:
Whoever drinks this water
Will be thirsty again;

14. But no one who drinks the water that I shall give
Will ever be thirsty again:
The water that I shall give
Will become a spring of water within, welling up for eternal life.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

sndbay,
Justin was a priest. He could consecrated the bread and wine so that the Holy Spirit would change it into the body and blood of Christ Jesus just as other priests can.
Jesus is the high priest and it was He who commanded His priests (apostles) to do that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Where did Jesus command priests to "change it into the body and blood of Christ Jesus"? Could you quote us that passage of scripture?

Please also note that I am also a priest, as are all those who have been saved through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

The separate priesthood required by the Old Covenant which provided mediators between men and God was done away with by the sacrifice on the cross. We who are saved now are able to go directly to throne of the Father in the name of Jesus, who is our high priest.

Heb 3:1-3
3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.
NKJV

The Apostles were a special group of men, and scripture tells us that there were only 12 of them (for example Rev 21:14)

Tj3,
To answer your question…….
Luke 22:14. When the time came he took his place at table, and the apostles with him.
15. And he said to them, "I have ardently longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
16. because, I tell you, I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."
17. Then, taking a cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and share it among you,
18. because from now on, I tell you, I shall never again drink wine until the kingdom of God comes."
19. Then he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
20. He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.
Also this which shows that the consecrated bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood.
John 6: 48. I am the bread of life.
49. Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead;
50. but this is the bread which comes down from heaven,
so that a person may eat it and not die.
51. I am the living bread which has come down from heaven.
Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world."
52. Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53. Jesus replied to them: “In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day.
55. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person.
57. As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me.
58. This is the bread which has come down from heaven;
It is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. “
And this which affirms that the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Christ Jesus.
1 Corin. 10: 14. For that reason, my dear friends, have nothing to do with the worship of false gods.
15. I am talking to you as sensible people; weigh up for yourselves what I have to say.
16. The blessing-cup, which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ; and the loaf of bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
17. And as there is one loaf, so we, although there are many of us, are one single body, for we all share in the one loaf.
18. Now compare the natural people of Israel: is it not true that those who eat the sacrifices share the altar?
19. What does this mean? That the dedication of food to false gods amounts to anything? Or that false gods themselves amount to anything?
20. No, it does not; simply that when pagans sacrifice, what is sacrificed by them is sacrificed to demons who are not God. I do not want you to share with demons.
21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons as well; you cannot have a share at the Lord's table and the demons' table as well.
22. Do we really want to arouse the Lord's jealousy; are we stronger than he is?
:) :) Peace and kindness,:)
Fred (arcura)

Fred,

First, nothing that you posted commanded priest to change the bread and wine, but nonetheless, let's go on.

I note that you omitted large parts of John 6. Let's look at this more closely.

He said in different ways that he is the bread that came from heaven but they did not appear to understand or believe.

John 6:42-47
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
NKJV

Note that Jesus says that He is the bread of life and that whosoever eats that bread shall live and not die. Further, we are told that those who ate the flesh in the wilderness died. The bread in the desert, the manna, was simply symbolic of Jesus, with Jesus being the true bread of life.

John 6:47-56
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" 53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
NKJV

Jesus says that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if we do, we receive eternal life. We need to read the full context and not just stop here if we need to find if indeed this is referring to actual human flesh and blood.

John 6:54-61
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
NKJV

Eating the flesh that Jesus speaks of and eating the blood means that we abide in Jesus and will live forever. Note: Taken literally, up to this point, this appears to provide a second means of salvation – if we were to eat His flesh and drink His blood, we gain eternal life. Is that what is meant? If we were to stop here, it would appear that the Catholics are right. But to stop without reading the full context would not be using sound Biblical exegesis, so lets continue on.

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
NKJV

Now Jesus now says that the flesh profits nothing. This appears contrary to verses 53-4 that state that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if we do, we receive eternal life, but then Jesus clarifies by stating that Jesus says that the words are the spirit and the life. This is why it is important to continue on and read the full context because Jesus has just struck to the very heart of the doctrine of transubstantiation by saying that the flesh does not profit us at all. Rather He says, that the life comes from the spirit, not the flesh and it is the words that bring the spirit.

Words = spirit = life, Flesh does not profit anything.

This is in harmony with what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 4:

Matt 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
KJV

It is God's word that brings life and the spirit, not eating the flesh. Therefore, even if the bread were changed to flesh, there would be no benefit from eating it. Now, remember earlier in this document, it was noted that human flesh and blood do perish and yet the bread that Jesus offered did not perish? Here is the explanation. Jesus was not speaking of bread, or of blood or of flesh but was speaking of the words of God which bring life. God word and the life which comes from God's word (the Gospel) are eternal. Bread, flesh and blood are perishable, but God's word and salvation which comes from receiving the gospel are eternal.

64a But there are some of you who do not believe.

Some do not believe that the flesh profits nothing rather and thus do not believe that it is His words that give the spirit and life. If they do not believe that the flesh profits nothing, then they must believe that it is the flesh rather than His words that He is speaking about.

64b For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

And some as a result, they will betray him.

63 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

The Apostles remain true and believe that the flesh profits nothing but rather believe in His words for the spirit and life. What could be the words that Jesus speaks which bring life? It is the words of truth, the truth of who He is, the truth or why He came to earth in the flesh and the words that give us the truth of the gospel, the only words which can bring us eternal life. Those who believed that He was speaking about the actual eating of flesh and drinking of blood missed the point of the gospel and were not saved. Those who stayed understood that without a sacrifice and without the shedding of blood, there was no remission of sins, and that Jesus was the lamb of God, sent to be the ultimate sacrifice, the only sacrifice which could actually take away sins and restore us to a right relationship with God.

There are numerous problems with interpreting this passage as supporting transubstantiation. Some of these problems are:

1) Jesus clear and specific words that explain this as not having anything to do with the actual flesh.

2) Jesus is using this to exhort those who profess to follow Him to digest His words, not His flesh.

3) Those who believed that He was teaching cannibalism (eating the flesh and drinking the blood) were the ones who turned away from Jesus. Those who understood that this had nothing to do with consuming human flesh and blood stayed with Jesus.

Ironically, by promoting this passage as promoting the eating of flesh and drinking of blood, the belief in transubstantiation actually turns against the actual teaching of Christ, which was to digest His words because they are the source of life and instead they turn away from His clear teachings in John 6 and insist that it is necessary to eat His flesh. Instead of looking towards that bread which never perishes and brings eternal life, the word of God, the gospel, the doctrine of transubstantiation looks for eternal life in that which is perishable, bread, wine, flesh and blood.

Tj3,
If Jesus said to do it, to me that means to DO IT.
He said, "Do this to remember (or recall) me"
He said it to His apostles, no one else.
What you posted of John does not change the point I was making.
Thanks for your effort though it will not change what the bible clearly says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I still don't see where it means it is not a spiritual (symbolic) term but a transubstantiation
To drink his blood and eat his flesh.

Tj3,
If Jesus said to do it, to me that means to DO IT.
He said, "Do this to remember (or recall) me"
He said it to His apostles, no one else.
What you posted of John does not change the point I was making.
Thanks for your effort though it will not change what the bible clearly says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I agree that if Jesus says to do it, that we should do it.

My question was, where does He command priests to change the substance of wine and bread? In John 6, Jesus said specifically that he does NOT means for use to eat actual flesh. You did not answer this question.

And you are right, He says to do this in remembrance (symbolic) of Him.

Lastly, if you are suggesting that because He said it to His Apostles alone that that means that it does not apply to anyone else, then it would undermine your point since there were only 12 Apostles.

Fred I have to agree with TJ3.. You are speaking of a teaching that comes from your church. Who also believes the church can take away from the individual, his right to receive the body and blood from whom they feel should not have it.
Like TJ3 said the Bread and Body that Christ speaks of is that which can not be stolen or lost if the individual remains stedfast in his love and belief in Christ. The individual must find Christ worthy . He is the Treasure..

There are scripture that strengthen this fact.

This contrary debate is found throughout several exact symbolic teaching that Christ has spoken of.. The water , The Rock, and now the Body and Blood.

Jeremiah 59:6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away [on] the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.

Where do Christains find their resting place? In Christ

Tj3,
If Jesus said to do it, to me that means to DO IT.
He said, "Do this to remember (or recall) me"
He said it to His apostles, no one else.
What you posted of John does not change the point I was making.
Thanks for your effort though it will not change what the bible clearly says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Christ did tell the apostles this, and the Apostles are the small stone of the Rock. Christ said feed my sheep to the apostles.. Christ was talking about the apostles feeding us His Word and Truth.

This forum does not fill me with what Christ has offered. Instead it puts stumblingblocks before each, and cast stone upon the Truth. This is not what Christians partake of, nor do I intend to continue. Hearing false teaching. There are forum available that teach the Word of God. TheSeason.Org (http://theseason.org)

If you are going to argue that Jesus gave His Apostles REAL blood to drink, then He would have been guilty of sin according to the Law. You know that is not so, therefore your argument falls on its face.

Galviston1,
Not so.
Jesus did say that this IS, my body, this IS my blood.
I believe what God the son said.
Jesus blood is divine blood, not any ordinary kind.
God is the law giver. If He says to eat His Body and Drink His blood then so be it and millions of people have been doing so for 2000 years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Galviston1,
Not so.
Jesus did say that this IS, my body, this IS my blood.
I believe what God the son said.
Jesus blood is divine blood, not any ordinary kind.
God is the law giver. If He says to eat His Body and Drink His blood then so be it and millions of people have been doing so for 2000 years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

But Fred, in John 6 Jesus said specifically and explicitly that He was NOT referring to the physical flesh and blood, but rather that it was those who thought that was the case that betrayed Him.

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
NKJV

Tj3,
Never-the-less Jesus SAID this Is my Body, this IS my blood.
I hope you do not mind if I believe what Jesus said.
When Jesus told his followers that "truly, truly" his body was food indeed and his blood drink indeed many walked away. The twelve did NOT. They accepted what Jesus said.
I note that Jesus did NOT call the ones who left back. Jesus meant exactly what he said and so do I and over a billion other people.
You believe as you wish as I will. OK?
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Tj3,
Never-the-less Jesus SAID this Is my Body, this IS my blood.
I hope you do not mind if I believe what Jesus said.
When Jesus told his that "truly, truly" his body was food indeed and his blood drink indeed many walked away.

Fred,

It is important that we not stop there and neglect to read the whole of what Jesus said when He explained what He meant, otherwise you are taking Jesus' words out of context.

2 Tim 3:16-17
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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV


I note that Jesus did NOT call them back. Jesus meant exactly what he said and so do I and a billion other people.


He did indeed mean what He said. Those who thought that He was referring to actual flesh left Him.

John 6:61-63
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
NKJV

Why did He not call them back? They rejected His words. They only heard what they wanted to hear.


You believe as you wish as I will. OK?

You are always welcome to believe as you wish.

Tj3,
You believe it your way, Tom, and I will believe it as I said, I believe Jesus made it clear that his body IS food indeed and His blood drink indeed, truly, truly.
That is good enough for me.

Tj3,
You believe it your way, Tom, and I will believe it as I said, I believe Jesus made it clear that his body IS food indeed and His blood drink indeed, truly, truly.
That is good enough for me.

Yes, Fred, and then He explained what He meant:

John 6:54-61
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
NKJV

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
NKJV

We abide by the words that Jesus has spoken - that is the Holy Scripture.

This is in agreement with what Jesus said in the gospel according to Matthew:

Matt 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
KJV

Tj3,
Thanks Tom, I'm glad to see that you finally agree that the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Since you say you believe what Jesus "truly, truly" said the discussion is over.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Thanks Tom, I'm glad to see that you finally agree that the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Since you say you believe what Jesus "truly, truly" said the discussion is over.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

How you managed to twist what I said into that is beyond me.

Fred, why won't you read the last portion of John 6 where Jesus explains what He means?

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
NKJV

We abide by the words that Jesus has spoken - that is the Holy Scripture.

This is in agreement with what Jesus said in the gospel according to Matthew:

Matt 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
KJV

Why won't you deal with the issue raised earlier by someone else that Jesus would have sinned if He commanded eating of human flesh?

And I must tell you, the problems with the belief in transubstantiation in scripture do not end there. Not by a long shot.

I have also comments on the previous post but I would like to give comment on the original question.

As you have quoted above, the church is being taught by the bible, thus, it is important.

Matthew 28:20 states "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen". So, blatant negligence of the importance of the church is disobeying Christ.

I have also comments on the previous post but I would like to give comment on the original question.

As you have quoted above, the church is being taught by the bible, thus, it is important.

Matthew 28:20 states "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen". So, blatant negligence of the importance of the church is disobeying Christ.

Yes, but that raises the question of "what is the church?". Is it the body of Christ? Is it the building that you enter on Sunday morning? Is it the congregation of people of who attend with you Sunday morning? Is it your church organization or denomination?

This is a critical question to answer because how we will respond depends greatly on how the word "church" is used in a specific context.

Yes, but that raises the question of "what is the church?". Is it the body of Christ? Is it the building that you enter on Sunday morning? Is it the congregation of people of who attend with you Sunday morning? Is it your church organization or denomination?

This is a critical question to answer because how we will respond depends greatly on how the word "church" is used in a specific context.
The church is the body of Christ. It is never a building made by hands of man. There is no indication in the bible that a physical building is ever called a church. What I mean here is the real church build by Christ--inclusive of its real biblical essence. It is referred to by the bible as the congregation of saints.

I am just emphasizing the importance of the church because it is part of the teaching of Christ. The term I used "As you have quoted above, the church is being taught by the bible, thus, it is important" only refers to 1 Tim 3:15 and not Matt 18:17 because Matt 18:17 was used out of context.

De maria
It is obvious that you are filled with some doubts. My advice is that you talk to God personally. Only He can explain a lot of things like why there is more than one denomination of churches and yet the bible calls us one body in Christ. Sincerely I have never comprehended it and frankly I don't think I will.
I just think you should form a deep and personal relationship with the Father and He would bring all things to your knowledge.
If you seek wisdom only He can give it. I have never felt oblidged to live my life according to church doctrines. I am justified by Christ and any question I have He answers.
Only God can give you a precise and accurate answer to your question.
So ask him.

The church is the body of Christ. It is never a building made by hands of man. There is no indication in the bible that a physical building is ever called a church. What I mean here is the real church build by Christ--inclusive of its real biblical essence. It is referred to by the bible as the congregation of saints.

I am just emphasizing the importance of the church because it is part of the teaching of Christ. The term I used "As you have quoted above, the church is being taught by the bible, thus, it is important" only refers to 1 Tim 3:15 and not Matt 18:17 because Matt 18:17 was used out of context.

Agreed. The church is the body of Christ, the body of all believers, alive and dead.

I just wanted to clarify the point regarding what the church is because often in these discussions we get people who claim that their denomination or local church building/congregation is "the Church". This is of course not correct because a physical congregation usually consists of both believers and non-believers, and thus cannot be the body of Christ, even though the body of Christ may be part of that congregation.

So The Church (Catholic) is Christ therefore we are to have faith that whatever the Popes declare to be is to be even though there is no Biblical basis and even contradicted in Scripture because The Catholic Church is believed before the scripture?

It is difficult to answer this question because you are hyper interpreting what I said.

1. The Pope does not declare anything which is not in agreement with Scripture.

That doesn't mean it is explicitly in Scripture. But it doesn't violate Scripture. For instance, again the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which you don't follow but many people do. That violates Scripture since Scripture tells us that the Church is also our authority.

2. Since the Catholic Church teaches us the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church is never in violation of Scripture. And since the Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), we have faith that the Church never will violate Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christ gave BELIEVERS the power to Bind and Loose so why do you want to give your God given powers over to the Church?

The church is to teach, instruct, edify and strengthen. Not impose rituals.

Scripture tells us that Jesus gave this power to the Apostles who were the foundation of the Church.

And the Church does not impose rituals. These rituals are performed in obedience of Christ's command to "do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19).

Sincerely,

De Maria

I best answered your question by using scripture.

And so we put Scripture against Scripture. Or more to the point, your interpretation of Scripture vs the Catholic Church interpretation.


And again I state firmly that the Bible is the Word of God written in scripture.

That is Catholic Teaching.

But Scripture says the Word of God is also passed down orally:

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

And since Scripture says that we keep the "traditions" by word and epistle that is, by word and Scripture, why do you seem to be telling me that the Word of God can no longer be passed on by Word?


I also made a statement using the scripture on Peter being told by the priest that he was not to speak of Christ and His blood. Peter replied that he would rather do as God has told him.

But did Peter say that he would rather do as Scripture told Him? No. Because Peter was inspired directly by God. And it is upon Peter that Jesus instituted His Church. So Peter here represents the Church doing what God said.

You are trying to remove Peter from the Church, but that is impossible. Peter is one with the Church because he is one with the Body of Christ.


There are several that call themselves a church.. there are members that attend these church... The question is which church has the foundation of Christ.

A very good question. As before, I believe it is the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church does not contradict Scripture.


And as Peter told the priest, He would follow the Word of God.

And the Church of Peter continues to follow the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition.


Now you tell me, Do you feel the priest felt he knew what Holy Sacred Text was saying better then what Peter knew in his heart?

Did the Priest even mentione Holy Sacred Text? You are reading that into Scripture.

The Priest here represents the Old Testament system in which God also instituted Priests. The new Priests in the New Church in the New Testament are here represented by Peter. It is the Old System vs the New. Not the Scriptures vs the Church. You are reading that into Scripture.


Paul stated in Colossians which I already submitted to you by scripture refer: 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;

Correct and as our Minister in the Church He taught the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture. I see nothing here which even remotely insinuates that we must disregard the Church nor place it against the Scriptures as though one was in competition with the other.

In fact, the Church has the mission of Teaching the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition.


You are asking the same question , and in my opinion you may not like what I find in my heart as Peter did, to be all the Truth.

I believe the Scripture is all the truth as you do. But did the Truth lose its force when it was written down?

1. The Church was inspired Jesus and then by the Holy Spirit to teach the Word of God.
2. Tradition first carried the Word of God and was passed down orally.
3. After the Scriptures were written, Tradition did not lose its force. It retained the Word of God which is now ALSO in Scripture and continues to teach it and pass it on.


Hopefully you also find your church minister, according to the dispensation of God

I do.


1 Peter 1: 17- 21And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Interesting that you would quote this. Do you understand that St. Peter is juxtaposing one tradition vs another. We were not redeemed by the tradition of the Jewish Fathers. But we are redeemed by the Precious Blood of Christ, which we receive in the Chalice whereby we proclaim His death until He come:

1 Corinthians 11 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.


The Word of God warns us not to be deceived as Eve was by false teaching.

And that is why God has provided us the Pillar of Truth to which we may run to get correct teaching.


I trust he fore told us all things for a very good reason.

I trust He provided the Church for a very good reason.


It was Satan who tempted Christ in twisted scriptures..

The Church does not twist Scripture but teaches Scripture. So what is the point here?


Answer: Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God
.Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Jesus also said:

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 10 27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.

So, my question remains unanswered. Why do you tell us to obey Scripture alone when Scripture obviously tells us to obey the Church?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Point of Interest:
The refer that you yourself have noted was a warning to the church. ( thou oughtest behave thyself )

KJV 1 Timothy 3:14-15 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 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.

It was a warning to the individual Christian. You oughtest behave yourself in the gathering of the Church because it is the household of God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.


AND You say the church is infallible? I believe we will let God judge how infallible "YOUR CHURCH" that you put before us really is.

Sounds fair. But more than that. It speaks to our faith in Scripture. I believe Scripture. Therefore I believe there is a Church out there which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and therefore infallible.

Do you believe Scripture? If you do, which Church do you believe is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?


Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

My first love is God and because I love God, I love His Word and it is His Church who taught me to love His Word in Scripture and Tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Do you believe Scripture? If you do, which Church do you believe is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?


First, what do you believe the "Church" is? The body of Christ? A building? A local congregation? A denomination?

All this shows the great division between the RC and the rest of Christendom.

Yes and that is a shame:

John 17 11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are.

The Catholic Church remains one visible entity teaching one unified doctrine. But the Churches which preach Sola Scriptura are splintered beyond recognition.


We simply do not believe that the RC is THE Church.

That is your prerogative. But Jesus did establish one Church. And none of the Reform Churches qualify since they came after Luther.


We believe that the Scriptures are our complete guide for all things spiritual;

This contradicts Scripture which teaches that we must obey our leaders because they are in charge of our souls:

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.


that no man has the right to change or add to them.

This is true. The Catholic Church has never changed or added to them. The Catholic Church simply teaches them.

It was Luther who added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28. And it was Luther who removed 7 books from the Old Testament.


I don't want to appear hateful, so let me state here that I do not hate Catholics, I see them as deceived.

I understand. Understand that we feel the same in turn.


I personally firmly believe that the RC is one of the oldest, largest cults in the world.

By "cult", you mean the word in the modern sense of "false religion".

But cult simply means religion. Originally the word did not connote anything negative. In that respect, all religions of the world are cults.

In the ancient sense, the Catholic Church is the oldest Christian religion in the world. That is why I believe the Catholic Church is the one that Jesus built. Because Jesus only built one Church.


What did the first Church look like?

Much like the Catholic Church:

Daily Eucharist:
Luke 11 3 Give us this day our daily bread.

Daily Liturgy:
2 Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

One Shepherd:
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.

One faith
Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

One doctrine
Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

And there are many other signatures of the Catholic Church in Scripture, in my opinion.


Its members healed the sick supernaturally, cast out devils, raised the dead (In come cases).

You write in the past tense as though this no longer happens? The Church continues to canonize Saints to this day:

List of Canonized Saints.
FAQ's - Saints & Angels - Catholic Online (http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php)

Pope Benedict XVI canonized Saints already:
Saints and Blesseds Proclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.gcatholic.com/saints/index.htm)


They were given directions from God via the Holy Spirit by tongues & interpretatiion or by word of prophecy. They knew things because the Holy Spirit told them. You only find such things today in the pentecostal movement. (I agree that it is sorely diminished from the Book of Acts, but there are remnants where these things still take place.) For Bible reference see 1 Corinthians Ch 12.

We still find these things in the Catholic Church.


Several major things cause me to reject the RC as the Church.
1. Their rejection of Scripture as absolute authority.

God is our absolute authority. The Word of God is our authority in Tradition and Scripture which is taught us by the Church which Jesus established for that purpose.


2. Their deification of Mary. (I honor Mary for her unique position in God's plan)

Do you honor Mary according to the instructions of Scripture? When?

Luke 1 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

We do. Every time we pray a Hail Mary, we repeat the Words of Scripture:

Luke 1 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Luke 1 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord (i.e. Mother of God) should come to me?

If God honored this woman with His Word inscribed in Scripture for all eternity, why don't you?


3. Their doctrine of trans substantiation; that the wafer and wine are ACTUALLY the body and blood of Jesus. If it is indeed the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus, then it is an object of worship, and is a form of idolatry. (If you doubt it you need to read Charles Chiniquy's book)

I would rather read the Bible:

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


Again, I repeat, I do not hate Catholics, and I find myself in agreement with DeMaria many times, but not here.

Thank you. We have our love of God in common.

Sincerely,

De Maria

But Jesus did establish one Church. And none of the Reform Churches qualify since they came after Luther.


Do you believe that Jesus established a denomination? This is critical because if you believe that Jesus established a denomination rather than establishing the body of Christ, it will dramatically change how you interpret scripture.

First, what do you believe the "Church" is? The body of Christ? A building? A local congregation?

You ask the question as though it is an either/or proposition.

The Church is the body of Christ. It is also the body of believers. When the Church congregates, the structure within which it congregates is also called the Church. The Church exists in local congregations, the Church of Houston, the Diocese of New York, the Church in America.


A denomination?

This is a difficult question. Again, as you were careful to mention, I am answering truthfully and without rancor.

The "churches" which resulted after the Reformation are correctly called denominations and not churches. They do not have Apostolic Succession.

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation were all former Catholic Priests. They were not Bishops. Therefore they could not provide Apostolic Succession.

Acts Of Apostles 1 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

The other Schisms before and possibly the Anglican Schism included the defecture of Bishops who could pass on their orders according to Church Tradition. Therefore the Orthodox and possibly the Anglicans may be correctly called Churches.

That doesn't mean that Reformed Christians aren't members of the Body of Christ and therefore members of the Church. That is guaranteed by their Baptism if they are Baptized according to the Scriptural injunction:

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Those Reformed Christians who reject Baptism and the Church but love Christ are deemed Christians because of their desire to be so. But we can only leave them to the mercy of God since they have rejected the ordinary means of justification provided by Our Lord:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1259)
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Do you believe that Jesus established a denomination? This is critical because if you believe that Jesus established a denomination rather than establishing the body of Christ, it will dramatically change how you interpret scripture.

No. Jesus established one Church. Men caused the Protestant Reformation, divided the Church and established denominations.

I've answered in more detail in the other response.

Sincerely,

De Maria

No. Jesus established one Church. Men caused the Protestant Reformation, divided the Church and established denominations.

I've answered in more detail in the other response.

Sincerely,

De Maria

If Jesus did not establish a denomination, then the reformation did not divide the church.

Scripture says that Jesus established the body of believers, which cannot be divided. That being the case, most of your arguments evaporate since they are based upon your assumption of your denomination being the church which Christ establish.

No use arguing against protestant churches or reformed churches. I am not a member of either.

If Jesus did not establish a denomination, then the reformation did not divide the church.

Scripture says that Jesus established the body of believers, which cannot be divided. That being the case, most of your arguments evaporate since they are based upon your assumption of your denomination being the church which Christ establish.

No use arguing against protestant churches or reformed churches. I am not a member of either.

This is what Scripture says:

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.

How do you define "denomination" and where do you see it in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

This is what Scripture says:

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.

How do you define "denomination" and where do you see it in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

First, denominations do not exist in scripture, therefore no denominations, including yours were in existence in the first century or established by Jesus.

Like most errors, taking a verse out of context can be seen by reading the context. Read the passage of scripture just before that verse to see what Jesus said that He would build his church upon. But this topic is a distraction because we agreed that Jesus did not establish a denomination, so let's consider what it was that He did establish.

As I indicated previously, my Bible indicates that He established the body of believers - do you agree?

The reason, because I believe Jesus established one Church:
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.

The Body of Christ is His Church, His Bride. We are made up of many parts. Not just one specific church. Each has its purpose and function just like a real body has different parts. No one part is supreme to the whole. The body can't function without the liver or walk without the legs.
We need each other and need to stop inter-denominational bickering. We need to be unified so that we can conquer Hell as Jesus said we can.

We need each other and need to stop inter-denominational bickering. We need to be unified so that we can conquer Hell as Jesus said we can.

All who are members of he body of Christ are united through the Holy Spirit.

We conquer hell? Reference please.

savedsinner7,
You are right as far as that goes.
I noticed that the bible tells us who Jesus was talking to when He spoke of that.
They were his apostles, disciples, and followers all.
The same when He spoke of unity.
They are the members of His Church (assembly: as translated from Aramaic).
They later met in homes, caves and other places to worship. Early on they begin building place to meet and worship which became known as Churches.
But the true Christian (as they called themselves) members of the Church are the Church and I do believe it is right and proper to call the buildings they have build out of Love for God that they also are called Churches.
It is very sad that there are now over 30,000 so-called denominations and God knows how many who call themselves non-denominational.
Note that the very first members thereof were basically united in unity.
Very soon after that some converts started breaking way, teaching their own ideas rather than what Jesus immediate followers were teaching as He Instructed and the fragmentation began and it continues like a run away train yet today.
It is fortunate that some of the larger denominations are working for unity.
I hope Jesus' prayer for unity will some day soon be fulfilled.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

savedsinner7,
You are right as far as that goes.
I noticed that the bible tells us who Jesus was talking to when He spoke of that.
They were his apostles, disciples, and followers all.
The same when He spoke of unity.
They are the members of His Church (assembly: as translated from Aramaic).
They later met in homes, caves and other places to worship. Early on they begin building place to meet and worship which became known as Churches.
But the true Christian (as they called themselves) members of the Church are the Church and I do believe it is right and proper to call the buildings they have build out of Love for God that they also are called Churches.


So, do you believe that everyone who attends such meetings are saved and are members of the body of Christ?

Scripture speaks of unity in the body of Christ which come from God (Jesus prayed to the Father for this unity, He did not command us to create the unity).



It is fortunate that some of the larger denominations are working for unity.
I hope Jesus' prayer for unity will some day soon be fulfilled.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Jesus prayer was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit was sent to indwell believers. Jesus never prayed for unity in denominations, or indeed does scripture command unity within church organizations (i.e between believers and unbelievers). Quite the contrary.

1 Cor 11:17-20
18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
NKJV

All who are members of he body of Christ are united through the Holy Spirit.

We conquer hell? Reference please.
Through the work that Jesus did on the cross. We are joint heirs with Him, He conquered hell and death, He lives in us and we are conquerors with Him.

Romans 12:21
Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil by doing good.

Jeremiah 20:11
But the Lord stands beside me like a great warrior.Before him my persecutors will stumble.They cannot defeat me.They will fail and be thoroughly humiliated.Their dishonor will never be forgotten.

1 John 5:4
For every child of God defeats this evil world, and we achieve this victory through our faith.

Revelation 12:11
And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamband by their testimony.And they did not love their lives so muchthat they were afraid to die.

Revelation 17:14
Together they will go to war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will defeat them because he is Lord of all lords and King of all kings. And his called and chosen and faithful ones will be with him.”

It is very sad that there are now over 30,000 so-called denominations and God knows how many who call themselves non-denominational.

Our bodies are made of many parts. The body of Christ is made of many parts. ALL are necessary to function to the fullest.

Our bodies are made of many parts. The body of Christ is made of many parts. ALL are necessary to function to the fullest.

Denominations are not part of the body of Christ. Individual believers are.

1 Cor 12:27
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Denominations are organizations of men made up of believers and non-believers.

Through the work that Jesus did on the cross. We are joint heirs with Him, He conquered hell and death, He lives in us and we are conquerers with Him.

Romans 12:21
Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil by doing good.

Jeremiah 20:11
But the Lord stands beside me like a great warrior.Before him my persecutors will stumble.They cannot defeat me.They will fail and be thoroughly humiliated.Their dishonor will never be forgotten.

1 John 5:4
For every child of God defeats this evil world, and we achieve this victory through our faith.

Revelation 12:11
And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamband by their testimony.And they did not love their lives so muchthat they were afraid to die.

Revelation 17:14
Together they will go to war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will defeat them because he is Lord of all lords and King of all kings. And his called and chosen and faithful ones will be with him.”

This is different than conquering hell. Hell is a place of torment of those who have rejected the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross. This refers to the fact that in Christ and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we gain a victory over sin in our lives.

Also, you said that we need to be unified to make this happen. Where is this found in scripture?

savedsinner7,
You are right. Jesus established one Church, the one He called "My Church" and that the bible refers to a The Church.
No matter what the bible says there are those who refuse to believe what Jesus and the bible says about that.
They keep talking about denominations when in fact there were none when Jesus established His Church.
Denominations came along after the detractors started fragmenting what Jesus founded.
That is authentic, historical fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

savedsinner7,
You are right. Jesus established one Church, the one He called "My Church" and that the bible refers to a The Church.
No matter what the bible says there are those who refuse to believe what Jesus and the bible says about that.
They keep talking about denominations when in fact there were none when Jesus established His Church.
Denominations came along after the detractors started fragmenting what Jesus founded.
That is authentic, historical fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Correct.

The first denomination that has been identified was in 325 AD formed by Constantine (confirmed by Cardinal John Henry Newman and others), and the next notable denomination started in 1054 at what is commonly referred to as the "Great Schism".

The church that Jesus founded (the body of Christ) has not and cannot be divided since it is composed solely of those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, regardless of what local church or denomination they may attend.

Tj3,
You might as well get it right by telling the whole true story.
During the years after Jesus founded His Church with Peter as it's first leader several other groups were formed that called themselves a church; some as far away as Egypt. That was LONG before The Church that Jesus founded decided to change the name to Catholic Church to signify that IT is the Universal Church.
That's history, Tom, and nothing you say can change that fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
You might as well get it right by telling the whole true story.
During the years after Jesus founded His Church with Peter as it's first leader several other groups were formed that called themselves a church; some as far away as Egypt. That was LONG before The Church that Jesus founded decided to change the name to Catholic Church to signify that IT is the Universal Church.


Fred,

You said previously that Jesus did NOT found a denomination. Now you say that He did. There is nothing to substantiate the claim that Peter was the head of any denomination, Roman Catholic or otherwise, or indeed that any denomination existed in the first century.

Let's see what Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman says:

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

That's history, Fred, and nothing you say can change that fact.

That is Catholic Teaching.

But Scripture says the Word of God is also passed down orally:

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

And since Scripture says that we keep the "traditions" by word and epistle that is, by word and Scripture, why do you seem to be telling me that the Word of God can no longer be passed on by Word?

De Maria


Point of Fact does not show traditions but instead : you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.




But did Peter say that he would rather do as Scripture told Him? No. Because Peter was inspired directly by God. And it is upon Peter that Jesus instituted His Church. So Peter here represents the Church doing what God said.

You are trying to remove Peter from the Church, but that is impossible. Peter is one with the Church because he is one with the Body of Christ.
De Maria

I am showing Peter as he loved Christ. Peter did as Christ asked him to do. I do not make Peter the foundation of a church. The foundation is Christ, perfect in every way. Christ is the Rock in which Peter will stand upon to give feed to the sheep.

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





I believe the Scripture is all the truth as you do. But did the Truth lose its force when it was written down?

1. The Church was inspired Jesus and then by the Holy Spirit to teach the Word of God.
2. Tradition first carried the Word of God and was passed down orally.
3. After the Scriptures were written, Tradition did not lose its force. It retained the Word of God which is now ALSO in Scripture and continues to teach it and pass it on.

De Maria

No scripture has not lost it's Truth.. Would you darn say the Holy Spirit has lost force? The Holy Spirit brings forth Truth in scripture. Traditions are brought forth by man that can defile men.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


And scripture goes on to say Mark 7:14 And when he had called all the people , he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one [of you], and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Why? Your answer is Mark 7:21
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders



Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Luke 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
Luke 8 :18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
Luke 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, [U]My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.


These scripture firmly tell us who to follow, and it is not man and not his traditions.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jesus says the scripture testify of Him. I fully believe in the power of God. It is He that brings forth Truth.

The church will stand firm teaching scriptures which testify of Christ to the sheep. Feed them the Truth and not traditions of men that defile. Love God above all, Have no other Gods, Keep the Sabbath Holy.. The Sabbath is Chirst, Christ is our rest..

sndbay,
Christ and the Holy Spirit guide The Church yet today.
So it stands firm as the bride of Christ Jesus and has for 200 years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

sndbay,
Christ and the Holy Spirit guide The Church yet today.
So it stands firm as the bride of Christ Jesus and has for 200 years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Fred,

Hmmm... Jesus has been the head of my church and the Holy Spirit has guided my church for 2000 years. Sorry to hear about yours!

:D

Tom

sndbay,
Christ and the Holy Spirit guide The Church yet today.
So it stands firm as the bride of Christ Jesus and has for 200 years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Fred, Who stands firm as the bride of Christ are those who believe. Those who remain stedfast in the Word of God, and stay within the light. And nothing is given to man that didn't come from heaven. (John 3:27)John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

Hear the Word Fred, (John 3:33-34 )He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].


John 3:35-36 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This is different than conquering hell. Hell is a place of torment of those who have rejected the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross. This refers to the fact that in Christ and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we gain a victory over sin in our lives.

Also, you said that we need to be unified to make this happen. Where is this found in scripture?
I'm not going to debate legalism with you. I believe that Jesus gave us His power to overcome Hell and Satan and all of his demons.

I'm not going to debate legalism with you. I believe that Jesus gave us His power to overcome Hell and Satan and all of his demons.

I am not talking about legalism, but scripture is clear that it is Jesus who defeated Satan, and that hell is part of God's creation where Satan and his followers exiost for all eternity. You are planning to defeat part of God's creation?

I am not talking about legalism, but scripture is clear that it is Jesus who defeated Satan, and that hell is part of God's creation where Satan and his followers exiost for all eternity. You are planning to defeat part of God's creation?

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (New Living Translation)
3 We are human, but we don’t wage war as humans do. 4 [a]We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. 5 We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ.

Zechariah 9:15
The Lord of Heaven’s Armies will protect his people,and they will defeat their enemies by hurling great stones.They will shout in battle as though drunk with wine.They will be filled with blood like a bowl,drenched with blood like the corners of the altar.

Revelation 12:11
And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamband by their testimony.And they did not love their lives so muchthat they were afraid to die.

1 John 5:4
For every child of God defeats this evil world, and we achieve this victory through our faith.

2 Corinthians 6:6-8 (New Living Translation)
6 We prove ourselves by our purity, our understanding, our patience, our kindness, by the Holy Spirit within us,[a] and by our sincere love. 7 We faithfully preach the truth. God’s power is working in us. We use the weapons of righteousness in the right hand for attack and the left hand for defense. 8 We serve God whether people honor us or despise us, whether they slander us or praise us. We are honest, but they call us impostors.

Deuteronomy 33:27
The eternal God is your refuge,and his everlasting arms are under you.He drives out the enemy before you;he cries out, ‘Destroy them!’

1 Samuel 24:4
“Now’s your opportunity!” David’s men whispered to him. “Today the Lord is telling you, ‘I will certainly put your enemy into your power, to do with as you wish.’” So David crept forward and cut off a piece of the hem of Saul’s robe.

Luke 10:19
Look, I have given you authority over all the power of the enemy

savedsinner7,

None of these say that we "defeat hell" and defeat Satan. Some speak about how God has defeated Satan and has given us authority, but once again that is His victory, not ours. None of the verses even mention hell.

Those were my points. And I think that these are important points because I believe that it is important that we give God all the glory for defeating Satan. Second, I think that it is important that we acknowledge that hell is not something evil, but rather that those who are evil and align themselves are evil are placed in their because of their rebellion against God, and because they have turned on God's people. It is therefore not hell that needs to be defeated, but rather hell is the symbol of the defeat of Satan by God.

1 Cor 15:56-58
56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Tj3 and sndbay,
I think you both know that that was a typo.
I meant 2000 years.
Thanks for pointing out my error.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3 and sndbay,
I think you both know that that was a typo.
I meant 2000 years.
Thanks for pointing out my error.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No problem. I just hope that you also realize that no denomination has existed for 2000 years.

savedsinner7,

None of these say that we "defeat hell" and defeat Satan. Some speak about how God has defeated Satan and has given us authority, but once again that is His victory, not ours. None of the verses even mention hell.

Those were my points. And i think that these are important points because I believe that it is important that we give God all the glory for defeating Satan. Second, I think that it is important that we acknowledge that hell is not something evil, but rather that those who are evil and align themselves are evil are placed in their because of their rebellion against God, and because they have turned on God's people. It is therefore not hell that needs to be defeated, but rather hell is the symbol of the defeat of Satan by God.

1 Cor 15:56-58
56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV


Yes, Jesus has the victory, but WE are joint heirs with Him and the victory is ours through Him.


Why are you hung up on one thing that I said instead of getting the idea of what I said? Do you not wage warfare?

Tj3,
What I was saying is that The Church Jesus founder with Peter as it's first leader is 2000 years old so the bible and authentic history tells us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

savedsinner7,
When Jesus said that the GATES of hell will not stand against it one must keep in mind that a gate is a battlement to keep people out.
The Church helps save souls who were destined to hell before the salvation offered by God and the sacrifice and resurrection of the Lamb of God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

savedsinner7,
When Jesus said that the GATES of hell will not stand against it one must keep in mind that a gate is a battlement to keep people out.
The Church helps save souls who were destined to hell before the salvation offered by God and the sacrifice and resurrection of the Lamb of God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
And I am preparing to storm those gates to set the people free! I am prepairng to conquer hell's hold on those whom Jesus has called His own!

savedsinner7,
Excellent!!
I hope for and wish you great success in that endeavor.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Yes, Jesus has the victory, but WE are joint heirs with Him and the victory is ours through Him.

Agreed. But the question is, victory over what, and who won that victory?


Why are you hung up on one thing that I said instead of getting the idea of what I said?

I am not hung up on it - I originally asked you for clarification, and was actually surprised at your clarification. I do think that it is important to have a clear view of what Jesus accomplished and to give God all the glory. The other concern is that we not mis-understand, as some religions teach, that hell is the domain ruled by Satan, which is how your comment that we are to defeat hell came across. That is why I asked for clarification.


Do you not wage warfare?

The question is not "do I", but how and against what, and in whose strength does the victory lie?

Tj3,
What I was saying is that The Church Jesus founder with Peter as it's first leader is 2000 years old so the bible and authentic history tells us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No such denomination exists. The Bible says no such thing. I have asked you to validate this from scripture a number of times.

Jesus did not start a denomination, but rather is the head of the body of Christ, which is the one and only true church whose members can be found in many local congregations and denominations throughout the world.

I was brought up as a catholic, and wanted to become a priest when I was in primary school. I was very dedicated to the catholic traditions, but felt that there should be more.
I went through my teenage years doing drugs and getting into all types of sinful behavior, like most catholics that I know. How-ever, when I was 21, even though I was living a sinful lifestyle, I still used to pray.
I was standing in my parents back yard in Adelaide and asked God to let His light shine through me to other people so that I could help them.
I walked into the house, and as I did, something washed over me and I started to speak in tongues. I had never heard about tongues, and didn't find out about it until 15 years later, when I became a Born again Christian, but that's another story.
After this I had 3 dreams, one , I was in a Catholic church and my back got really hot. I turned around and it was raining blood and fire on the church. I was taken out of there in the spirit and taken back to before the world was formed. The Holy Spirit was there, or at least, that's who I believe it was. He stood there wearing like a white monks habit and had his head bent forward slightly, so I couldn't see His face. He had his hands together, inside his sleeves. I could see the earth, but it was black and void. I looked around and saw a light coming down from space, it reflected onto something and shone onto a big screen that stood beside the one dressed in white. It was my life, all written down and moving up the screen slowly. I heard a voice, very loud, that sounded like thousands of voices, or one loud voice and I knew it was the voice of God. I was very afraid and woke up shaking and sweating.
The other dreams, in a shortened version, is I went to hell and stood at the very gates of hell, I could see the flames flickering on the walls and the heat again on my back. There was a power pulling me into hell, I started saying, " Jesus is my Saviour, I love Jesus!" and the power stopped pulling me. I started to walk away, but the power started to pull me again. I quickly started to say jesus name again and continued to say His name until I got out of the cave.
The third dream was I was on a boat, exactly like you would imagine Noahs ark, it was nighttime and there was a war going on. The enemy gunship was firing onshore, so I told the others on the boat to jump off and swim to shore as I was going to ram the enemy with the ark. They jumped and I turned the ark towards the gunship. They didn't see me until it was too late, we crashed and sank immediately.
I was sucked under and was swimming to the surface thinking, "I'll make it, I always do"
Suddenly I stopped swimming and realised that I was dead, and thought, "Well, I might as well wake up now."
I didn't understand the meaning of these dreams then, but I do now.
After this happened, I would be out the backyard, praying in tongues, but I didn't know it was tongues, I thought that I made up a new language myself, I never even thought of relating it to God.
The Holy Spirit started talking to me and told me to get baptized by full immersion, believing what I was always taught, I said " where do I go, the protestant church the Lutheran church, I thought that this (the Catholic church) was supposed to be the one true church?"
The Holy Spirit then told me to go and see this guy that I used to be one of the suppliers of the Buddha sticks that I used to get.
I didn't know that he got busted and went to jail and became a born again Christian in jail.
I thought about it, and told the Holy Spirit, "If I don't settle down in the world by the time I am 35, then I will find you then, even if i have to become a priest or a monk or even a nun!"
The trouble was, I loved my sinful lifestyle too much. How-ever, when I was 35, my world fell apart, my fiancée took off with another man and I tried to kill him twice, the first time, an angel stopped me, or at least I believe it was, I was in a deserted street, in a country town at 5 in the afternoon, I dragged this guy out of the car and started to punch him in the face, I was going to punch him to death, when this man, about 6'10" tall and very well built, stepped between us and said" that's enough, go home", I said"get out of the way this is between him and me". He repeated it again, " Enough, go home" so I did.
The next time I went to his house and a voice told me to not take a club with me, then as i was about to kick the door in the voice said no, so I knocked on the door and my fiancee was there. I finally broke up with her very calmly, then and walked out .
As I was walking away, I thought "Hang on, that's not what I came here to do." and stopped to turn around. Suddenly, an audible voice spoke from above my right ear and said " NOW, GO AND GET BAPTIZED".
Needless to say, I did, and though expecting nothing to happen, as soon as I came out of that water, I was changed, I immediately felt clean, and as I walked around that meeting, I looked at the faces of the people, whom I had never met, and had this intense feeling that I had come home.
That was 18 years ago, and have seen many miracles in my life since then.
You know that when Jesus asked His disciples who do men say that I am, and Peter said that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, He called Peter a stone, not a rock, (Petros, not Petra), and it was upon Peter's statement of faith that Jesus is the Son of God that the Church would be built, not on Peter. Jesus is the Rock that the builders rejected, He is the Rock upon which we stand.
Peter was a pillar of the Jerusalem Church, along with James and John, Paul was sent to the Gentiles. When Paul wrote to to the Church in Rome, he never mentioned Peter's name, because he was in Jerusalem. He may have been taken to Rome to be killed, but there is no record of it anywhere, it is just tradition.
Peter was married and took his wife with him when he travelled.
In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul tells the believers in Corinth not to be divided, not to follow Paul or Apollos or Peter, but to follow Christ. That remains the same today, we follow the risen Christ, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the only name under which we can be saved (Acts 4:12), and the only advocate with the Father is Jesus, (1John 2:1)
I don't think any of this is important, debating over scripture, but it's fun. The main thing is to get real with God, be willing to say, " Father, if I am not in the right place, and you don't tell me, because I am asking You now; then, when I stand before you on the day of judgement, then I will say, it is your fault, because I asked you, but you didn't tell me.
Have fun, be blessed, take it straight to Jesus, don't make gods out of all the other, so called saints, it won't look good on your resume when you stand before the judgement seat of Christ and He says, "I never knew you." Get to know Jesus personally, He's a great guy, always willing to listen, and funny too, He makes good things happen when you least expect it.

Tj3,
Why can you not get it through your head that denominations did not com along until the reformation.
You Ignore what the bible clearly says and authentic history.
Why?
Peace and kindness, Fred

Peter Wilson,
That is an interesting story.
Thanks for sharing it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Why can you not get it through your head that denominations did not com along until the reformation.
You Ignore what the bible clearly says and authentic history.
Why?
Peace and kindness, Fred

Why, Fred? Because I have studied both secular history and church history, and I know better. I have also studied the Bible and have found no denominations in the Bible either, not yours, not any denominations.

If you think that you can refute the historic facts, then, deal with the issue and post your rebuttal rather than attacking the person. That would be a more effective approach.

The other concern is that we not mis-understand, as some religions teach, that hell is the domain ruled by Satan, which is how your comment that we are to defeat hell came across. That is why I asked for clarification.

Sorry I took offense to this. Hell is the place set aside for Satan and his demons. When I speak of conquering hell, I refer to its inhabitants. :) I know that the victory is Jesus's, but we are also in this with Him and we get to claim that victory through Him!

Sorry I took offense to this. Hell is the place set aside for Satan and his demons. When I speak of conquering hell, I refer to its inhabitants. :) I know that the victory is Jesus's, but we are also in this with Him and we get to claim that victory through Him!

I see what you are saying, but personally, I don't claim the victory over Satan - I give God all the praise for that victory because without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be helpless. It is all Him.

I see what you are saying, but personally, I don't claim the victory over Satan - I give God all the praise for that victory because without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be helpless. It is all Him.


I know where I end up without Him. I was a gutter junkie addicted to whatever I could get. He is my Strength and my Song, He is my Victory...


Exodus 15:2
The Lord is my strength and my song;he has given me victory.This is my God, and I will praise him—my father’s God, and I will exalt him!
Exodus 15:1-3 (in Context) Exodus 15 (Whole Chapter)

Psalm 118:14
The Lord is my strength and my song;he has given me victory.
Psalm 118:13-15 (in Context) Psalm 118 (Whole Chapter)

Isaiah 12:2
See, God has come to save me.I will trust in him and not be afraid.The Lord God is my strength and my song;he has given me victory.”

No problem. I just hope that you also realize that no denomination has existed for 2000 years.

I agree that the Catholic Church is not a denomination. But yes, the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years.

Sincerely,

De Maria

First, denominations do not exist in scripture, therefore no denominations,

I agree. Jesus only established one Church. Denominations came about when people broke away from that one Church.


including yours were in existence in the first century or established by Jesus.

I disagree. I believe the Catholic Church is the one established by Jesus Christ. I can see Her Teachings in Scripture and I can trace Her historically back to the time of Christ.


Like most errors, taking a verse out of context can be seen by reading the context. Read the passage of scripture just before that verse to see what Jesus said that He would build his church upon. But this topic is a distraction because we agreed that Jesus did not establish a denomination, so let's consider what it was that He did establish.

Advice I give you whole heartedly. Especially in searching for Sola Scriptura in Scripture. You will find, if you do so, that Scripture alone contradicts Scripture.

Will you take the challenge? Please provide the Scriptures that you believe attest to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.


As I indicated previously, my Bible indicates that He established the body of believers - do you agree?

Yes. He established His Church and He called it Church. And He gave His Church the mandate to be make disciples of the world, in other words, to be Catholic.

Sincerely,

De Maria

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?

Has anyone answered the question yet? If so, I missed it.

What I want to know is why nonCatholics say we should neglect the Church when Scripture obviously puts great import on the Church?

Sincerely,

De Maria

ANSWER: who says listen to scripture alone?
I have not heard anybody say listen to scripture alone yet.
Where do you get that anybody is saying listen to scripture alone?

De Maria, You are correct.
And if one reads Scripture carefully and correctly one sees that Jesus was addressing Peter directly and speaking of him when he said to Peter, You are rock and on this rock I will build My Church.
Also tie that with Jesus speaking in the parable about building a house on a rock and not sand which is tiny pebbles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

ANSWER: who says listen to scripture alone?
I have not heard anybody say listen to scripture alone yet.
Where do you get that anybody is saying listen to scripture alone?

Its been a while since I started this thread, but I believe I started it in response to someone on this forum saying just that.

In addition, I think TJ does. And even if TJ doesn't, there is a long tradition of people in the reformed traditions who claim that Scripture alone is the rule of faith. Therefore, they don't believe that the Church is infallible nor that the Church has authority over man.

Are you saying that you don't believe in Scripture alone?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I believe that Church teachings should be backed by scripture but then you have different denominations that say THEY are the only ones that interpret it right.

N0help4u,
Tj is but one of many who believe in the heresy of scripture alone called Sola Scriptora.
These passages also demonstrate that Scipture alone is NOT a biblical teaching.
NO WHERE in the bible is a statement that "scripture alone" is to be believed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I believe that Church teachings should be backed by scripture

That is correct. In fact, Church teachings are essentially interpretation of Scripture.


but then you have different denominations that say THEY are the only ones that interpret it right.

Including the Catholic Church. And one of them is correct because Scripture says that the Church of Christ is the Pillar of Truth. That means that Christ's Church is infallible.

I believe that Church is the Catholic Church for the reasons I've previously mentioned.

Sincerely,

De Maria

N0help4u,
Yes there are some who claim to be the right or best church, but that doies not make it so.
Jesus established one Church he called My Church and the bible referres to it as The Church in many different verses.
At the very beginning there was just one Church and the bible clearly shows that Peter was the leader thereof.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

N0help4u,
Yes there are some who claim to be the right or best church, but that doies not make it so.
Jesus established one Church he called My Church and the bible referres to it as The Church in many different verses.

Quite right. I have seen many claim that their denomination was the only one established by Jesus and that they are the only true church, and you are right - such a claim does not make it so.

Jesus established the body of Christ, not a denomination. The first denomination did not even start until 325 AD.


At the very beginning there was just one Church and the bible clearly shows that Peter was the leader thereof.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Actually, even scripture shows that there were may different churches, if you are referring to organized churches, and since there was no denomination, Peter could not have been the head. Indeed, there is only one true church, which is not an organization, but rather is the body for Christ of which Jesus alone is the head.

Eph 5:23-24
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

N0help4u
The book ON This Rock does a very thorough job of showing all that Scripture has to say about The Church and who was appointed by Jesus to be the leader thereof.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

N0help4u,
Tj is but one of many who believe in the heresy of scripture alone called Sola Scriptora.


A heresy which is taught in scripture. Hmmmm. :D


These passages also demonstrate that Scipture alone is NOT a biblical teaching.


Really? Do show us.


NO WHERE in the bible is a statement that "scripture alone" is to be believed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

What was the one source that Jesus used when established what sound doctrine was? I bet you don't answer. ;)

N0help4u
The book ON This Rock does a very thorough job of showing all that Scripture has to say about The Church and who was appointed by Jesus to be the leader thereof.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Do you know who scripture says that the Rock is?

1 Cor 10:4
Or they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

Throughout scripture, we find that the Rock is symbolic of Christ. Any teaching or tradition which says otherwise is in contradiction to God's word.

Its been a while since I started this thread, but I believe I started it in response to someone on this forum saying just that.

In addition, I think TJ does. And even if TJ doesn't, there is a long tradition of people in the reformed traditions who claim that Scripture alone is the rule of faith.
[/quote[]

I never said to listen to scripture alone. I said that scripture alone is the standard of truth. Many who do not understand or have never studied Sola Scriptura post the erroneous understanding that it means that we listen to scripture alone.

[quote]Therefore, they don't believe that the Church is infallible nor that the Church has authority over man.

No denomination is inafallible, nor will you find such a concept in scripture. So any tradition that claims otherwise is in contradiction to scripture. God alone is perfect and infallible.

I believe that Church teachings should be backed by scripture but then you have different denominations that say THEY are the only ones that interpret it right.

That is the problem. When a denomination - any denomination - claims the right to interpret scripture, they are teaching contrary to scripture.

2 Peter 1:19-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Note that this say "NO MAN". That means none of us on this thread, that means not the pastor at your church or mine, not the head of the Church of England, not the Pope, no one.
Scripture interprets scripture.

Tj3,
Once again the bible teaches in several different passages which I have posted sever times for you over the years and again I posted them here today.
You chose to ignore ALL that the bible says about that and of course that is your right to believe as you wish.
The bible teaches no heresies for which to believe.
That has been dreamed up by people who came along after Jesus establishef His Church with Peter as its first leader.
Nothing you can say or will change that fact of Biblical Truth and actual history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter which means rock.
Jesus said that Peter would be THE Rock on which he would build His Church and that prophesy came true and has been true for 2000 years.
Those are facts whether you want to believe them or not.
All of your arguments otherwise are useless in the face of those facts.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter which means rock.


Actually, it means "stone"

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV



Jesus said that Peter would be THE Rock on which he would build His Church and that prophesy came true and has been true for 2000 years.

Actually was the declaration of who Jesus is. Jesus is the foundation of the church.

1 Cor 3:11-12
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

If a tradition claims that there is any foundation other then Christ (whether it be Peter or something/someone else), it is in contradiction to scripture.

Those are facts whether you want to believe them or not.
All of your arguments otherwise are useless in the face of those facts.

Tj3,
Twist it ant way you want to, Tom, but a rock is a stone and a stone is a rock.
I know what the bible and history says so anything you say in attempt to make me believe otherwise is useless.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
Twist it ant way you want to, Tom, but a rock is a stone and a stone is a rock.


It is funny, Fred, but all I did was quote what the Bible says and you call it twisting. Given a choice between accepting what scripture says, and your personal interpretation and changes, I'll stick with scrtipture.

I never said to listen to scripture alone. I said that scripture alone is the standard of truth. Many who do not understand or have never studied Sola Scriptura post the erroneous understanding that it means that we listen to scripture alone.

In essence, you are saying that I don't know what Sola Scriptura means, am I correct?

Ok, then please, define it for me. Then we can search the Scriptures like good Bereans to see if it is taught in Scripture.


No denomination is inafallible, nor will you find such a concept in scripture. So any tradition that claims otherwise is in contradiction to scripture. God alone is perfect and infallible.

What does Scripture mean then, when It calls the Church, the "Pillar of Truth"? (1 Tim 3:15). By what stretch of the imagination, does that description depict a fallible Church?

Also, is God unjust, that He would punish those who do not listen to the Church when the Church might be wrong? (Matt 18:17)

And finally, are you infallible? If not, then why do you argue as though I must believe you as opposed to believing the Church? After all, what makes you better than the Church at interpreting Scripture?

Please answer these questions. I always answer all of yours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

In essence, you are saying that I don't know what Sola Scriptura means, am I correct?

Ok, then please, define it for me.

Tom didn't say your interpretation of Sola Scriptura is wrong but that you assume that anybody who says back it WITH scripture believes in sola scriptura when we have told you time and again we do not follow sola scriptura but do not think the Church should interpret it any way they feel like it to make up their own traditions. You claim the Catholic church was the first church but according to Acts the Pentacostal church follows Acts and the Bible far closer than the Catholic teachings.


What does Scripture mean then, when It calls the Church, the "Pillar of Truth"? (1 Tim 3:15). By what stretch of the imagination, does that description depict a fallible Church?

Again that does not defend any one denomination and it means the true believers as a whole


Also, is God unjust, that He would punish those who do not listen to the Church when the Church might be wrong? (Matt 18:17)

And finally, are you infallible? If not, then why do you argue as though I must believe you as opposed to believing the Church? After all, what makes you better than the Church at interpreting Scripture?

Again you are putting all your faith in the Catholic church

Tom didn't say your interpretation of Sola Scriptura is wrong but that you assume that anybody who says back what a church or doctrine says WITH scripture believes in sola scriptura when we have told you time and again we do not follow sola scriptura

I believe you said you didn't follow Sola. Did Tom say he doesn't follow Sola Scriptura? Where? When?


but do not think the Church should interpret it any way they feel like it to make up their own traditions.

The Church doesn't interpret Scripture anyway they feel like it. The Church interprets Scripture infallibly.

And the Church doesn't make up traditions. The Traditions of the Church are the Traditions of God passed down by the Apostles.

But I'll ask you the same thing. What makes your interpretation of Scripture better than the Church's interpretation of Scripture?

I for one, am a follower of Christ. I see the Church's interpretations and I see yours and I believe the Church. Why do you believe that I should believe you? Are you infallible?


You claim the Catholic church was the first church but according to Acts the Pentacostal church follows Acts and the Bible far closer than the Catholic teachings.

Whenever you want to compare Pentescostal beliefs and Catholic beliefs with Scripture, let me know. I am ready, willing and able.


Again that does not defend any one denomination and it means the true believers as a whole

Really? Where do you find that in Scripture?

In Scripture, the Church is portrayed as a visible entity to whom one may go when one has a problem. How does one approach all believers as a whole?


Again you are putting all your faith in the Catholic church

Again, Scripture tells me to have faith in the Church. Why do you seem to counsel me to disobey Scripture? Are you better than Scripture?

So, lets back up. You claim that you insist I back up my teachings with Scripture. Is what's good for the goose good for the gander? Show me where Scripture says I may disobey the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You are too set in the Church being the Catholic church that you can never see past that point. And Toms has said several times that the teaching has to be backed up by scripture
He never said that he believes scripture alone.
For example; I am sure he believes in the Trinity and other doctrines that are not named in the Bible but he finds the doctrine backed up by scripture therefore he is not sola scriptura as you claim.

A heresy which is taught in scripture. Hmmmm. :D

Where? Show me TJ, where is Sola Scriptura taught in Scripture?


Really? Do show us.

I've shown you over and over. Since you have not defined Sola for us, I have to define it according to the old Lutheran teaching that Scripture is the sole rule of faith.

However, that is clearly a contradiction of Scripture.

Scripture shows that we must believe our leaders:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow,.

Scripture shows us that the Church is the Pillar of 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.

Scripture tells us there are penalties for not obeying the Church:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

All this contradicts Sola Scriptura.


What was the one source that Jesus used when established what sound doctrine was? I bet you don't answer. ;)

I bet I do. Jesus used many sources. Most of all His innate wisdom.

Luke 4 22 And all gave testimony to him: and they wondered at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth, and they said: Is not this the son of Joseph?


What you probably don't know is that the parables which Jesus used were not completely original. They were taken from Jewish tradition.

Here's an example: Tell me if you recognize it. From the great Gamaliel:

"A person in whom there are good deeds and who has studied the Torah extensively, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] stones and then afterwards [of] mud bricks. Even if a large quantity of water were to collect beside the stones, it would not destroy them. But a person in whom there are no good deeds, though he has studied Torah, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] mud bricks and then afterwards [of] stones. Even if only a little water collects, it immediately undermines them."

RABBINIC PARABLES (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vERq1Pe5SI8J:www.cfi-interactive.co.uk/downloads/rabinnic-parables.pdf%3FPHPSESSID%3D39f1e774b9ff06fed012da5 0ddaaf01b+Jesus+parables+Jewish+traditions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=33&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

Here's another:
The Broken Oath
Come (and) hear!
Valeria the proselyte asked Rabban Gamaliel (II):
--"Why is it written in your Torah:
--'He does not lift up (his) countenance..." (Deut 10:17c)
while it is written:
--'The LORD lift up his countenance upon you' (Num 6:26)?"
Joining in, Rabbi José the Priest said to her:
--"I'll give you a parable.
To what is this matter likened?
To a man who loaned his comrade [chaber] a hundred (shekels)
and fixed the due date in the presence of the king
and (the borrower) swore by the king's life (that he'd pay).
The due date arrived and he had not repaid (the lender).
He went to appease the king, who said to him:
--"I forgive you the insult to me.
It is for you to appease your comrade!"
So, too, the latter (text) concerns man's offences towards God [ha Maqom]
the former concerns man's offences towards his comrade."
--- Babylonian Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 17b



And Jesus instructed that the Jews should obey even the Pharisees. Why?

Matt 23 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 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: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

Where did He get this teaching of "Moses Seat"?
From Rabbinic tradition.

And of course, Jesus also taught from Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You are too set in the Church being the Catholic church that you can never see past that point.

So you've abandoned Scripture to make simple opinionated statements. I could say the same about you. You are set in your ways and never see past that point.


And Toms has said several times that the teaching has to be backed up by scripture

Which I've done. And I've asked Tom to back his up with Scripture as well.


he never said that he believes scripture alone.

I believe you are wrong there. But Tom can answer that question himself.


for example; I am sure he believes in the Trinity and other doctrines that are not named in the Bible but he finds the doctrine backed up by scripture therefore he is not sola scriptura as you claim.

Good point. Many Sola Scripturists believe in the Trinity. Lutherans believe in Sola Scriptura and they also believe in the Trinity.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Originally Posted by Tj3
A heresy which is taught in scripture. Hmmmm.





Where? Show me TJ, where is Sola Scriptura taught in Scripture?

Where? Show me TJ, where is Sola Scriptura taught in Scripture?

Where did Tom say sola scripture is taught in scripture?
That quote suggests nothing like that!



Scripture shows that we must believe our leaders:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow,...

Scripture shows us that the Church is the Pillar of 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.

Scripture tells us there are penalties for not obeying the Church:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

All this contradicts Sola Scriptura.

HOW does it contradict scripture when it is scripture and the Bible also says you are to back it up with scripture?


I bet I do. Jesus used many sources. Most of all His innate wisdom.

Luke 4 22 And all gave testimony to him: and they wondered at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth, and they said: Is not this the son of Joseph?


What you probably don't know is that the parables which Jesus used were not completely original. They were taken from Jewish tradition.

Here's an example: Tell me if you recognize it. From the great Gamaliel:

"A person in whom there are good deeds and who has studied the Torah extensively, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] stones and then afterwards [of] mud bricks. Even if a large quantity of water were to collect beside the stones, it would not destroy them. But a person in whom there are no good deeds, though he has studied Torah, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] mud bricks and then afterwards [of] stones. Even if only a little water collects, it immediately undermines them."

RABBINIC PARABLES (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vERq1Pe5SI8J:www.cfi-interactive.co.uk/downloads/rabinnic-parables.pdf%3FPHPSESSID%3D39f1e774b9ff06fed012da5 0ddaaf01b+Jesus+parables+Jewish+traditions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=33&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

Here's another:
The Broken Oath
Come (and) hear!
Valeria the proselyte asked Rabban Gamaliel (II):
--"Why is it written in your Torah:
--'He does not lift up (his) countenance..." (Deut 10:17c)
while it is written:
--'The LORD lift up his countenance upon you' (Num 6:26)?"
Joining in, Rabbi José the Priest said to her:
--"I'll give you a parable.
To what is this matter likened?
To a man who loaned his comrade [chaber] a hundred (shekels)
and fixed the due date in the presence of the king
and (the borrower) swore by the king's life (that he'd pay).
The due date arrived and he had not repaid (the lender).
He went to appease the king, who said to him:
--"I forgive you the insult to me.
It is for you to appease your comrade!"
So, too, the latter (text) concerns man's offences towards God [ha Maqom]
the former concerns man's offences towards his comrade."
--- Babylonian Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 17b



And Jesus instructed that the Jews should obey even the Pharisees. Why?

Matt 23 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 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: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

Where did He get this teaching of "Moses Seat"?
From Rabbinic tradition.

And of course, Jesus also taught from Scripture.


Of course because it IS scripture!

Originally Posted by Tj3
A heresy which is taught in scripture. Hmmmm.

Where did Tom say sola scripture is taught in scripture?
That quote suggests nothing like that!

Message #173
An exchange between Arcura and TJ



Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
N0help4u,
Tj is but one of many who believe in the heresy of scripture alone called Sola Scriptora.



Response by TJ
A heresy which is taught in scripture. Hmmmm.


Obviously, TJ believes Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture but won't reveal where.


HOW does it contradict scripture when it is scripture

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not Scripture. It is a tradition of men which says that Scripture is the sole rule of faith. As I have demonstrated before with many Scripture quotes, Scripture says that the Church is also a rule of faith.


and the Bible also says you are to back it up with scripture?

But not with Scripture ALONE. And that is the problem with Sola Scriptura. Scripture does not teach Scripture alone.

Scripture teaches Scripture and Tradition as taught by the Church.

When you find the verse that says, "Scripture alone", let me know.


Of course because it IS scripture!

If you are talking about Moses' seat, it wasn't Scripture when Jesus spoke it. It was Rabbinic teaching.

If you mean that Sola Scriptura is Scripture, then you have contradicted yourself because you say you don't believe in Scripture alone and yet claim to believe in Scripture. Whereas Scripture does not teach the doctrine of Scripture alone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj is but one of many who believe in the heresy of scripture alone called Sola Scriptora.
Obviously, TJ believes Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture but won't reveal where.

I think I would understand it better if he explained to me how he believes sola scriptora because I haven't seen him believing in no doctrinal beliefs whatsoever.

Tj is but one of many who believe in the heresy of scripture alone called Sola Scriptora.
Obviously, TJ believes Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture but won't reveal where.

I think I would understand it better if he explained to me how he believes sola scriptora because I haven't seen him believing in no doctrinal beliefs whatsoever.

Hm?

Doesn't he believe the Bible? The Bible contains the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Everyone who believes the Bible believes doctrines:

Matthew 7 28 And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine.

But, you are correct. I can't tell you what Tom believes. Only he can clear that up for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

What makes you say Him? Doesn't he believe the Bible?
I said Tom believes doctrines meaning Trinity and things that Churches believe even though the word trinity is not in the Bible. So evidently he must believe some church doctrines even though they are not stated in the Bible as such.

What makes you say Him? Doesn't he believe the Bible?
I said Tom believes doctrines meaning Trinity and things that Churches believe even though the word trinity is not in the Bible. So evidently he must believe some church doctrines even though they are not stated in the Bible as such.

Oh. Sorry, I was confused when you said:

because I haven't seen him believing in no doctrinal beliefs whatsoever.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ok, then please, define it for me. Then we can search the Scriptures like good Bereans to see if it is taught in Scripture.


I told you previously - it is the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine. If a doctrine or a teaching disagrees with the Bible, then it is wrong. All teaches are to be tested against the Biblical standard.

You are too set in the Church being the Catholic church that you can never see past that point. And Toms has said several times that the teaching has to be backed up by scripture
he never said that he believes scripture alone.
for example; I am sure he believes in the Trinity and other doctrines that are not named in the Bible but he finds the doctrine backed up by scripture therefore he is not sola scriptura as you claim.

Right - except for the fact that sola scriptura does not mean "scripture alone" as defined by Roman Catholics. This is a strawman put up by the catholic church to oppose sola scriptura. I have no problem with accepting other documents, writings etc, as long as they can be shown to be in alignment with scripture. Indeed, documents which go outside of scripture but do not contradict oppose or contradict Biblical doctrine can be accepted as speculation but not doctrinal.

Message #173
Obviously, TJ believes Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture but won't reveal where.


Sigh - have you been reading my posts?


The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not Scripture.

Answer me this - what did Jesus use to validate sound doctrine? Was Jesus wrong? Should He have submitted Himself to the teachings of the religious leaders?

# Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
# In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
# "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.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
# Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
# For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Why God wants use to back doctrine with scripture rather than scripture to a doctrine

Matthew 7:15,16 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...
2 Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth , and be turned aside to fables.
Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves . Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
Matthew 15:9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 3:16,17 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Hebrews 13:9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.

Again and again we need to hear the Word. Man continues to fail even today. No perfect church or man walks upon this earth. Moses was not perfect, and was not permitted to see the promise land because of his deed done improperly in stricking the rock. Thus in that time frame penalty was paid. David several times failed and each time was to reap from what he did that was wrong. Again that time frame being of the old covenant he paid for the mistakes. Each time praying for forgiveness and mercy.. One change came to us all in the New Covemant in Jesus. Thus today we follow the light = law which followed is done in faith in Christ.

To man or church my opinion is don't be prideful of oneself but respect and love those that teach the Truth of Christ Jesus...

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.
John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning "star."

I told you previously - it is the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

That's what I thought. Where is that in Scripture?


If a doctrine or a teaching disagrees with the Bible, then it is wrong.

We believe that as well. Who decides whether a teaching disagrees with the Bible?


All teaches are to be tested against the Biblical standard.

Where does Scripture say that?

We believe that also. We simply don't believe that the Bible is the sole standard. We believe all teachings are to be tested against the Word of God which is held in Scripture and as well as in Tradition. And we believe this judgement is to be made by the Church which is called the Pillar of Truth in Scripture.

Let us compare and see whose belief is found in Scripture and whose belief contradicts Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

What makes you say Him?? Doesn't he believe the Bible?
I said Tom believes doctrines meaning Trinity and things that Churches believe even though the word trinity is not in the Bible. So evidently he must believe some church doctrines even though they are not stated in the Bible as such.

We can quit speculating. In message #194, TJ admits he believes in Scripture alone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Your belief Purgatory we already covered that it is not scriptural because it cancels the meaning for Jesus death. So that doctrine does not line up with scripture.

You believe pray to Mary the scripture says there is only one intercessor.

Tom says back doctrine with scripture
You believe back scripture to doctrine
Which is the correct standard?

He said sole standard meaning back up what you believe with scripture
He did not say sola scriptura

Basically by insisting Tom is sola scriptura you are admitting that the Catholic doctrines are not solely based on scripture validation. You want to believe the Church has the power and authority to make traditions and doctrines separate from the Bible that is where you and Tom differ. Your interpreting his statement as proving he is scripture only is your perception.
Actually nobody can be sola scriptura because nobody has the one and only true interpretation.

Right - except for the fact that sola scriptura does not mean "scripture alone"

It doesn't. But you have just defined it and it sounds very much like what Luther said.

Luther said, Sola Scriptura, Scripture is the sole rule of faith.
You said, Sola Scriptura, Scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

What is the difference?


as defined by Roman Catholics.

That doctrine is not a Catholic Doctrine. It was defined by Luther and denounced by the Catholic Church. It is a false doctrine.


This is a strawman put up by the catholic church to oppose sola scriptura.

No. I believe this argument you are making here, that the Church defined Sola Scriptura is a straw man to make the uninformed believe that the Church has misrepresented Sola Scriptura. But the head to head comparison of what Luther said, and what you say, is right above. There is hardly any difference and neither of them are in Scripture.

So they both fail. Scripture, the rule of faith, does not mention Sola Scriptura as either sole standard of doctrine or sole rule of faith. And if there is a difference of meaning between those two statements, you are splitting hairs.


I have no problem with accepting other documents, writings etc, as long as they can be shown to be in alignment with scripture. Indeed, documents which go outside of scripture but do not contradict oppose or contradict Biblical doctrine can be accepted as speculation but not doctrinal.

You have contradicted yourself. Do you accept documents outside of Scripture which do not contradict Scripture as doctrinal or not? In one sentence you say you do, in the very next you say they are speculation. Which is it?

Sincerely,

De Maria

You have contradicted yourself. Do you accept documents outside of Scripture which do not contradict Scripture as doctrinal or not? In one sentence you say you do, in the very next you say they are speculation. Which is it?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't understand why you have a hard time comprehending backing doctrine with scripture.
You think Tom is contradicting himself when it is simply that you do not seem to be able to comprehend the differentiation and I haven't a clue how to make it any more simple

He said sole standard meaning back up what you believe with scripture
He did not say sola scriptura

Lol!!

He said that Sola Scriptura means sole standard.

Read it again:

Originally Posted by Tj3
I told you previously - it is the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

"It" in "it is the belief", refers to Sola Scriptura.


Basically by insisting Tom is sola scriptura you are admitting that the Catholic doctrines are not solely based on scripture validation.

Correct. They are based on the Word of God which is carried in Scripture AND Tradition.

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

Note that there are two forms of tradition we must keep. Epistle means Scripture. Word means oral. We, as Catholics, keep them both.

In addition, the Bible also says we must turn to the Church:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

We, as Catholics, do so. Scripture tells us to.

But Scripture nowhere says that we must "soley base our beliefs on Scripture validation".
Nowhere. Unless you can provide the verse.


You want to believe the Church has the power and authority to make traditions and doctrines separate from the Bible that is where you and Tom differ.

No. That is your misrepresentation of the Church. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are one Word of God. They are inseparable.

You and Tom want to separate the two. But that is not God's will. Again, review 2 Thess 2:14 above. We keep both Traditions. You have denied one of them.


Your interpreting his statement as proving he is scripture only is your perception.

He said so. Why don't you discuss that with him?


Actually nobody can be sola scriptura because nobody has the one and only true interpretation.

We are not Sola Scripturist and we do have the true interpretation of Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sigh - have you been reading my posts?

Yes.


Answer me this - what did Jesus use to validate sound doctrine? Was Jesus wrong? Should He have submitted Himself to the teachings of the religious leaders?

As I have shown in a message to which you didn't respond. Jesus used His innate wisdom, parables based on Rabbiinic tradition and Rabbinic tradition and Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Lol!!!

He said that Sola Scriptura means sole standard.



De Maria

Just shows you do not get it!

If I say the sole standard for making a cake is to read recipes
That means I do not look up a cake recipe in the mechanics repair book
That does not mean that the cake IS made precisely according to the recipe I found in the recipe book.
But that I used the formula to make the cake. If motor oil is not in the recipe book I do not use motor oil.
Catholic Church uses motor oil in their recipe and then try to find a way to justify it even though it is not in
The recipe book.

Also why do you accept a religion that does not back up everything by the Bible?

# Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Very good. And God sent Prophets to tell the Jewish People His message and established a Levitical Priesthood to explain His message. Therefore, the Jewish people did not rely on Scripture alone.


# In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."

Again, God set up men like Moses and Aaron, Joshua and David to direct our paths and He provided priests, like Nathan, to direct their paths. In fact, for many years, the Scriptures were lost to the Jews, but they still had access to the Prophets and the Priests.


# "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.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Note first that this doesn't say that ONLY the Scriptures are inspired. And it can't because St. Peter tells us that Holy Men are also inspired.

Then note that the Scriptures are good for what? For doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Therefore the Scriptures are never alone. They must be taught!!

Romans 10 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?


# Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Note that one does not need to necessarily study Scripture. The tradition of preaching, of teaching of itinerant Rabbis, of which Jesus is a prime example, was going strong back then and it is still strong today.


# For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Yes, but the Word of God is not limited to a book. It is also alive and well in the Traditions of the Church.


Why God wants use to back doctrine with scripture rather than scripture to a doctrine

Remember that Scripture came from Tradition. Not the other way around. First men spoke then what they spoke was written.

Remember also that first Jesus spoke His doctrines, then the Church taught them and then the Church wrote them down in Scripture. And when they wrote them down they did not cease to teach.


Matthew 7:15,16 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...

Good, let us see the fruits of the Protestant reformation:
1. Division - the slightest disagreement in doctrine inspires another denomination.
2. Divorce - What God has joined together let no man tear asunder.
3. Contraception - Few if any Protestant denominations denounce the evil of contraception.


2 Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth , and be turned aside to fables.

We believe this has happened in Protestantism. It is they who multiply denominations simply because they disagree with doctrine.


Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves . Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, the architects of the Protestant reformation were all originally Catholic Priests.


Matthew 15:9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, the Pillars of the Protestant Reformation, are traditions of men which contradict the Word of God.


2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Again, sadly, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were Catholic priests.


2 Peter 3:16,17 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

This is precisely a contradiction of the Protestant doctrine of the Perspicuity (easy to understand, self explanatory) nature of Scripture.

Here, Scripture Itself tells you that some things in Scripture are difficult to understand. That is why God provided a standard for us to which we have recourse, the Church.


Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Again, the traditions of men such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have been used to cheat many. The medicine is the true doctrines taught by the Catholic Church throughout the millennia.


Hebrews 13:9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.

Fuirther proof of the necessity of the Church for the teaching of true doctrine.

Please note carefully that none of these mention "Scripture alone" at all. And none of these even imply Scripture alone. In fact, they confirm Scripture and Tradition by Church Teaching.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Also why do you accept a religion that does not back up everything by the Bible?

I don't.

You want to confuse man made doctrines and traditions with the traditions taught by Jesus and the Rabbi's. Yes they did not use the Book because the book was about what THEY taught so don't you think that what the Catholic Church teaches should line up with what they taught?

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, the Pillars of the Protestant Reformation, are traditions of men which contradict the Word of God.

So you are saying that sola scriptura is NOT the Bible?
I am sorry I thought you have been saying that Tom goes only by the Bible.
What traditions of sola scriptura contradicts the Bible?

Why do you insist that the traditions of the Catholic church are right when they do not follow the Bible but you insist that Toms beliefs are tradition and not the Bible?

Your belief Purgatory we already covered that it is not scriptural because it cancels the meaning for Jesus death. So that doctrine does not line up with scripture.

Yes, we discussed the doctrine. I believe we are still discussing it. I have so far gotten you to admit that we do make satisfaction for our sins. Having accepted that you should logically accept the doctrine of Purgatory.


You believe pray to Mary the scripture says there is only one intercessor.

The Scriptures also say that there is only one teacher. Yet you and everyone accept many teachers. So, the Scriptures really mean that there is a Primary Intercessor, whom we are called to imitate. Therefore, when someone says "pray for me", I don't turn around and say, "DON'T YOU KNOW THERE IS ONLY ONE INTERCESSOR!!!" No, I pray for him.

And knowing that God is a God of the living we know that the souls in heaven are ready, willing and able to pray for us when asked.


Tom says back doctrine with scripture
You believe back scripture to doctrine
Which is the correct standard?

You still don't understand.

Tom says back doctrine with Scirpture ALONE.

I say what the Church teaches. Doctrine must be backed by Scripture AND Tradition.

Here's an example.

Many centuries ago, Arius and Athanasius got into an argument about doctrine. They both believed they were correct. They both used Scripture to back them up and they both claimed the Holy Spirit was on their side.

They took their argument to the Church. The Church compared Arius claim and Athanasius claim to what? To Scripture? Nooooo!!

They compared the claims of both to the Traditional Teachings of the Church Fathers from all antiquity. And they discovered that Arius was teaching a novelty. The Church had never interpreted Scripture they way Arisus taught. But the Church had always believed and taught what Athanasius taught.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Yes, we discussed the doctrine. I believe we are still discussing it. I have so far gotten you to admit that we do make satisfaction for our sins. Having accepted that you should logically accept the doctrine of Purgatory.

I did not say we make satisfaction for our sins after we die. I said the believers judgment our works are refined not our sins.

You want to confuse man made doctrines and traditions with the traditions taught by Jesus and the Rabbi's. Yes they did not use the Book because the book was about what THEY taught so don't you think that what the Catholic Church teaches should line up with what they taught?

Thank you. What the Church teaches lines up with Jesus teachings exactly.


So you are saying that sola scriptura is NOT the Bible?

Correct.


I am sorry I thought you have been saying that Tom goes only by the Bible.

I am saying that Tom believes a tradition of men called Sola Scriptura wherein people are taught that they can interpret the Bible independently of the Church. They use the Bible as their sole standard of doctrine without consideration of what was taught by the Church for centuries before them.


What traditions of sola scriptura contradicts the Bible?

Sola Scriptura Itself.
Sola Fide.
Once Saved Always Saved.
The reduction of Mary's role in salvation.
The reduction in our role in our salvation.
The idea that one must sin for grace to abound.

And many more.


Why do you insist that the traditions of the Catholic church are right when they do not follow the Bible but you insist that Toms beliefs are tradition and not the Bible?

It is the other way around. The Catholic Church follows the Bible. Many of Tom's beliefs do not. Nor do many of yours.

Why do you keep referring back to Tom? I mean, its OK, but it seems strange. I'm used to debating with people who defend their own beliefs, not someone else's. Do you believe what he believes?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Yes, we discussed the doctrine. I believe we are still discussing it. I have so far gotten you to admit that we do make satisfaction for our sins. Having accepted that you should logically accept the doctrine of Purgatory.

I did not say we make satisfaction for our sins after we die. I said the believers judgment our works are refined not our sins.

And I asked what our works represent and where are they because we don't take anything with us?

Have you answered that question(s)? If you have, I missed it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Works are like if you do things to please God and try to work your way to salvation rather than being lead by God. Like if you knock yourself out for to do favors for God but that wasn't where God wanted you or what he wanted you to be doing then your works are straw they get destroyed and they do not receive a crown. If you were lead by the Holy Spirit then your works receive one of the crowns.

Remember with Cain and Abel God accepted ones sacrifice and not the others

Mat 7:21 -23 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

1 corinth 3:11-16
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw
The work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

# The Crown of Life.This crown rewards the believer's faithfulness during trials. The Lord will reward those who accept trials with joy (James 1:2-3, 12). If we will love and trust God during times of adversity, our moral strength and stamina will only increase and make our character pleasing to God. Regardless of how bad things may appear, God wants us to trust in Him.

# The Crown of Righteousness. This crown is for those who long to see Him face to face, and ponder it daily (2 Tim. 4:7-8). Jesus talked about this longing in the parable of the master who went on a long journey (Matt. 24:44-51). Servants who eagerly and actively await their master's appearing are those who love their master and obey His instructions even during His absence.

# The Crown of Glory. This crown awaits those, who out of right motives, shepherd God's people (I Peter 5: 2-4). Shepherds are not merely to tell the sheep how to live, but to demonstrate by their own lives how to live. Jesus provided the example of the perfect shepherd, and He also provides the strength to follow His example. God will reward those who serve others eagerly and see their labor as a privilege. This crown is reserved for those who have the same heart Jesus has toward His sheep, described in John 10:11: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

# The Crown of Rejoicing. This is the soul winner's crown (I Thess. 2:19-20). It is not hard to understand God's eagerness to reward those who bring the lost to Him. But we are not always geared toward evangelism and we let negative thinking hinder our reaching out. We must realize that a relationship with God is exactly what unbelievers are searching for, whether they realize it or not, and reaching out to them causes God to rejoice.

Works are like if you do things to please God and try to work your way to salvation rather than being lead by God. Like if you knock yourself out for to do favors for God but that wasn't where God wanted you or what he wanted you to be doing then your works are straw they get destroyed and they do not receive a crown. If you were lead by the Holy Spirit then your works receive one of the crowns.

Remember with Cain and Abel God accepted ones sacrifice and not the others

Mat 7:21 -23 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

1 corinth 3:11-16
for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw
the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

# The Crown of Life.This crown rewards the believer's faithfulness during trials. The Lord will reward those who accept trials with joy (James 1:2-3, 12). If we will love and trust God during times of adversity, our moral strength and stamina will only increase and make our character pleasing to God. Regardless of how bad things may appear, God wants us to trust in Him.

# The Crown of Righteousness. This crown is for those who long to see Him face to face, and ponder it daily (2 Tim. 4:7-8). Jesus talked about this longing in the parable of the master who went on a long journey (Matt. 24:44-51). Servants who eagerly and actively await their master's appearing are those who love their master and obey His instructions even during His absence.

# The Crown of Glory. This crown awaits those, who out of right motives, shepherd God's people (I Peter 5: 2-4). Shepherds are not merely to tell the sheep how to live, but to demonstrate by their own lives how to live. Jesus provided the example of the perfect shepherd, and He also provides the strength to follow His example. God will reward those who serve others eagerly and see their labor as a privilege. This crown is reserved for those who have the same heart Jesus has toward His sheep, described in John 10:11: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

# The Crown of Rejoicing. This is the soul winner's crown (I Thess. 2:19-20). It is not hard to understand God's eagerness to reward those who bring the lost to Him. But we are not always geared toward evangelism and we let negative thinking hinder our reaching out. We must realize that a relationship with God is exactly what unbelievers are searching for, whether they realize it or not, and reaching out to them causes God to rejoice.

I can't say that I disagree with any of that.

What are works of iniquity?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I can't say that I disagree with any of that.

What are works of iniquity?

Sincerely,

De Maria

DEATH IF they were not covered under Jesus' blood.
------------------

The idea that one must sin for grace to abound.
I don't see Tom believing that.
Where does he say that?

You never did answer my question is purgatory before or after the judgment?
And is the duration different lengths according to your sins?

Yes.

Good. Then you know that I have presented some of the scriptural basis for sola scriptura.

I am still waiting for you to validate your belief in tradition. Keep in mind that the onus is on you as I stated once before, and here is why:

- We all agree that the 66 books accepted and identified by the early church are canonical.
- Your denomination and you accept additional books and tradition as canonical.
- Scripture says:

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV

The onus is therefore is on those who wish to add to the books accepted by all Christians as canonical to validate that the additional source(s) are the word of God.


As I have shown in a message to which you didn't respond. Jesus used His innate wisdom, parables based on Rabbiinic tradition and Rabbinic tradition and Scripture.

I note that you did not respond to my question. My questions was with respect to what Jesus used to validate sound doctrine.

Now, as to the source of the parables, if you are saying that Jesus relied on Rabbinic tradition, then you would be denying His divinity. The reason is that Rabbinic tradition is documented in the Talmud, and came from the Rabbis themselves, who often added to the law given in scripture, which is what Jesus referred to when He said:

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

DEATH IF they were not covered under Jesus' blood.

Ok. I get the reference. So works of iniquity are sin.

Now, are these works tested? If so, where?


I don't see Tom believing that.
Where does he say that?

I didn't say that Tom believed that. He might or might not.

The fact is that the Catholic Church has one set of beliefs, one doctrine.

But Bible Christians have many. In fact, there are probably as many sets of beliefs as there are Bible Christians because you have no authority to standardize your beliefs. That includes you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You never did answer my question is purgatory before or after the judgment?

I believe it is the Judgement.


and is the duration different lengths according to your sins?

Since this occurs outside of time, I don't believe that there is any duration to it.

Ok. I get the reference. So works of iniquity are sin.

Now, are these works tested? If so, where?

In the Judgment of the unbelievers. The great white throne judgment.
Unsaved sinners will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.

From what I looked up on the Catholic sites it says 12 months.
But the Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord

In the Judgment of the unbelievers. The great white throne judgment.
Unsaved sinners will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.

Great! And when will this take place which is described in 1 Cor 3:15?

Just shows you do not get it!

If I say the sole standard for making a cake is to read recipes
That means I do not look up a cake recipe in the mechanics repair book
that does not mean that the cake IS made precisely according to the recipe I found in the recipe book.
But that I used the formula to make the cake. If motor oil is not in the recipe book I do not use motor oil.
Catholic Church uses motor oil in their recipe and then try to find a way to justify it even though it is not in
the recipe book.

No, Nohelp4u, that is wrong.

You and Tom and I use the same recipe book.

The recipe book states that traditions are part of the recipe (2 Thess 2:14).

You and Tom have taken the recipe book and changed it to remove traditions.

Also the recipe book which we, you, Tom and I, use says that the Church is the cook whom we must hear to determine how to cook and whether our cooking is done correctly.

You and Tom have disregarded those instructions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

But Bible Christians have many. In fact, there are probably as many sets of beliefs as there are Bible Christians because you have no authority to standardize your beliefs. That includes you.

Maybe you'd be best to speak for your denomination rather than for Bible believing Christians. ;)

Those who believe in the Bible do have one set of doctrines. The problem with many churches - and this is true of Catholic as well as Protestant denominations - is that many choose to allow their doctrines to be established by interpretations of men rather than allowing scripture to interpret itself.

It does not say the Catholic Church is the cook that can cook up concoctions contrary to the word. Also you keep insisting that tradition is important when the Bible says about tradition

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites." Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked [Jesus], why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is WRITTEN [Jesus is quoting the Bible], This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...
And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:5-9, 13

No, Nohelp4u, that is wrong.

You and Tom and I use the same recipe book.


Not true. Your denomination has added to the recipe book, and then modified the recipe book by interpreting the recipes in the manner which your leaders wanted, contrary to scripture:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV


The recipe book states that traditions are part of the recipe (2 Thess 2:14).

Maybe you mean a different 2 Thess 2:14? :D

2 Thess 2:14
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Good. Then you know that I have presented some of the scriptural basis for sola scriptura.

I've read your posts, but I've seen nothing which provides a basis for Sola Scriptura within your messages.


I am still waiting for you to validate your belief in tradition.

Certainly:

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

Does that suffice?


Keep in mind that the onus is on you

On me?

I don't mind. I've provided and will continue to provide the evidence for my position.

However, remember the OP. The question is to you:


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

Why, if doing so is to disobey Scripture?


So, actually, the onus is on you to prove why we must disobey the Church.


as I stated once before, and here is why:

- We all agree that the 66 books accepted and identified by the early church are canonical.

The early Church accepted and identified 73 books. Note that the first to remove the 7 books of the Old Testament were the Jews in the council of Jamnia:
About 90-95 A.D., or several decades after the beginning of Christianity, the Jews called a council to deal with the matter. In this council, called the "Council of Jamnia*", Jewish Pharisees, who survived the devastating destruction of Jerusalem and of their temple in 70 A.D., decided to remove books that were helpful to Christians. They removed the seven books, using various reasons as their "authorization" to do so. Keep in mind, that the Greek speaking Jews had been using the Septuagint for well over two centuries by this time. It was the Bible of the Greek speaking "Bereans" of Acts 17:10-15 for which Protestants like to quote to try to "prove" their false man-made doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".

Some non-Catholics charge that the seven books were not added to the Septuagint until the fourth century. If that were true, how could the Council of Jamnia have removed them in the first century if they were not there?
Canon of Scripture (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm)

But those were the Jews, the Christians continued to hold the 7 deuterocanonical books, what you call the apocrypha until the time of Luther. Luther then sided with the Jews who hated Jesus and took out the 7 books:

[I]By the actions of Protestant reformers in acceptance of the 39 book Old Testament, which was declared the whole of Scripture by the Jewish Pharisees at Jamnia, the Protestants have made it tantamount to approval of the Pharisaic Jews who rejected Jesus and persecuted the Church. [/I
]

- Your denomination and you accept additional books and tradition as canonical.

The canonical Scriptures tell us to accept tradition (2 Thess 2:14).


- Scripture says:

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV

And Sola Scriptura is an addition to Scripture. So is Sola Fide and every man made tradition which contradicts Catholic doctrine.


The onus is therefore is on those who wish to add to the books accepted by all Christians as canonical to validate that the additional source(s) are the word of God.

It is actually on those who wish to remove authentic Scripture simply because they teach things which are not agreeable with their man-made traditions.


I note that you did not respond to my question. My questions was with respect to what Jesus used to validate sound doctrine.

I sure did.


Now, as to the source of the parables, if you are saying that Jesus relied on Rabbinic tradition, then you would be denying His divinity. The reason is that Rabbinic tradition is documented in the Talmud, and came from the Rabbis themselves, who often added to the law given in scripture, which is what Jesus referred to when He said:

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

Often but not always. Jesus did not condemn all Rabbinic tradition. Only those which contradict the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Often but not always. Jesus did not condemn all Rabbinic tradition. Only those which contradict the Word of God

EXACTLY the point we are trying to get across about the Catholic Church tradition contradicting the word of God.

Certainly:

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

Does that suffice?

Interesting - your Bible's verse numbering appears to be off. But no, that won't work because it speaks of what the Apostles taught in writing and verbally (note - no difference between the two), and they are dead therefore no longer on earth teaching in verbally - that leaves us with what they wrote, and scripture says not to go beyond what is written.



However, remember the OP. The question is to you:

So, actually, the onus is on you to prove why we must disobey the Church.


Actually, I would never suggest that we disobey the true church, but the true church is not a denomination. We have been through this over and over. What you want is not for us to obey the true church, but to submit to your denomination. That I will not do, because the doctrines of your denomination are contrary to God's word.


[I]The early Church accepted and identified 73 books.

The additional books were added by the Roman church at the council of Trent. I have the complete proceedings of the council in front of me.

Not true. Your denomination has added to the recipe book, and then modified the recipe book by interpreting the recipes in the manner which your leaders wanted, contrary to scripture:

Lets see:
In the first century, the Jews in the council of Jamnia REMOVED 7 books from the Old Testament. They couldn't have removed them if they weren't there, could they?
deuter.htm (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/deuter.htm)

But Christians continued to use the 46 books of the Old Testament:
Septuagint (http://www.septuagint.net/)

And the 73 books of the entire Bible were listed by Pope Damasus who served between 366 and 384:
As early as Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.393 in the Council of Hippo and several times thereafter:
The Canon of the Bible (http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm)

That list was confirmed several times and finally, in response to Luther's attacks, in the council of Trent in 1556.


2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

I'm glad you brought this up. Did you notice that it was Holy Men who were inspired to speak?


Maybe you mean a different 2 Thess 2:14? :D

2 Thess 2:14
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Yes, I do. I mean the one in the 73 book Bible which uses the 46 books of the Old Testament which Jesus used.

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

Lets see:
In the first century, the Jews in the council of Jamnia REMOVED 7 books from the Old Testament. They couldn't have removed them if they weren't there, could they?
deuter.htm (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/deuter.htm)

First, you mis-understand Jewish history - they removed nothing. They were defining Jewish canon. The fact that when Jewish canon was first defined, the apochryphal books were not there is yet another indication of their lack of canonical status.

The apochryphal books were not accepted by any denomination until the Council of Trent when the Roman Church chose to add them.

You need to get a new Bible with the right verse numbering!

Interesting - your Bible's verse numbering appears to be off.

Since our Bible precedes yours, I would say that your bible's numbering is off.


But no, that won't work because it speaks of what the Apostles taught in writing and verbally (note - no difference between the two), and they are dead therefore no longer on earth teaching in verbally - that leaves us with what they wrote, and scripture says not to go beyond what is written.

We don't.

But let me ask you. Why did St. Paul instruct Timothy to select men who would teach?

2 Timothy 2 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.


Actually, I would never suggest that we disobey the true church,

Then which Church do you obey?


but the true church is not a denomination. We have been through this over and over. What you want is not for us to obey the true church, but to submit to your denomination.

Not at all. I am not the one telling you to disobey your Church. You are the one telling me to disobey mine.

I'm simply asking you on what Scriptural basis you tell me to disobey the Church?


That I will not do, because the doctrines of your denomination are contrary to God's word.

I've shown that they are not. I've also shown that yours are.

However, this begs another question, who are you to tell me what the Bible says?

Do you have a higher authority than the Church? Do I find your name in Scripture saying that you are the Pillar of Truth?


The additional books were added by the Roman church at the council of Trent. I have the complete proceedings of the council in front of me.

Good. Let me ask you, if the Catholic Church added the books in the Council of Trent, how is it that Luther removed them before the Council of Trent? He couldn't have removed what wasn't there in the first place, could he?

And how is it that these books are listed included in every Christian Bible before Luther came along?

Sincerely,

De Maria

First, you mis-understand Jewish history - they removed nothing. They were defining Jewish canon. the fact that when Jewish canon was first defined, the apochryphal books were not there is yet another indication of their lack of canonical status.

The apochryphal books were not accepted by any denomination until the Council of Trent when the Roman Church chose to add them.

You need to get a new Bible with the right verse numbering!

No, I'm certain, they were there. It is called the Septuagint. This included the 46 books of the Old Testament.

The Jews removed it in response to the fact that the followers of Christ were using it.

Besides, Christians were using the 46 books of the Old Testament before and after the council of Jamnia.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Since our Bible precedes yours, I would say that your bible's numbering is off.

Heh heh heh - nice try, but no cigar. Odd, but you did you the correct numbering here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/sola-scriptura-vs-church-sacred-tradition-scripture-172099-12.html#post1175162


But let me ask you. Why did St. Paul instruct Timothy to select men who would teach?

What is important is that they be faithful, Paul said, which means that they would teach Biblical doctrine, not traditions of men.


Then which Church do you obey?

The body of Christ of which Jesus alone is the head. I do not place any denomination above Jesus.


Not at all. I am not the one telling you to disobey your Church. You are the one telling me to disobey mine.

When your tells you to believe a doctrine which is not scriptural, I would indeed think that it is best to disobey your church. Scripture tells you this also.


However, this begs another question, who are you to tell me what the Bible says?

A person who can read.


Do you have a higher authority than the Church? I do have a higher authority than yopur denomination. I follow Jesus and His word. That is a much higher authority than your denomination.

You say that you have shown that your churches doctrines are not contrary to the word of God but we are the ones that showed you that purgatory is contradicting the word of God AND Jesus' sacrifice.

No, I'm certain, they were there. It is called the Septuagint. This included the 46 books of the Old Testament.

The Jews removed it in response to the fact that the followers of Christ were using it.

Besides, Christians were using the 46 books of the Old Testament before and after the council of Jamnia.


You need to study more about the history of scripture. You are mixing up so many things. You appear to think that because something is bound with scripture, it is part of the canon. Does that make study notes in the Thompson study Bible part of canon? No, of course not, and just because some additional books were added for reference purposes does not make them canonical.

A discussion such as this does not allow adequate time to deal with the mis-understandings that have been posted regarding how the canon was established.

heh heh heh - nice try, but no cigar. Odd, but you did you the correct numbering here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/sola-scriptura-vs-church-sacred-tradition-scripture-172099-12.html#post1175162



True. I did the correct numbering.


What is important is that they be faithful, Paul said, which means that they would teach Biblical doctrine, not traditions of men.

Odd, I don't see the word "biblical" doctrine in there. I see where he said, "2 Timothy 2
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.

Heard of me. Not what you have "read in Scripture".


The body of Christ of which Jesus alone is the head. I do not place any denomination above Jesus.

Nor do I. But, since Jesus created the Church, I accept her authority:

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.



When your tells you to believe a doctrine which is not scriptural, I would indeed think that it is best to disobey your church. Scripture tells you this also.

Scripture tells me that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. Therefore Scripture tells me that Church doctrine is always consistent with Scripture. Otherwise, it wouldn't support the truth, would it? And that is what pillars do, support things. The Pillar of Truth, supports the truth.

So, try again.


A person who can read.

So, any person who can read is a higher authority than God's Church?

I'm glad you said that because it gives me the opportunity to highlight it and contrast it to the wisdom of the Church.

Example: Does the United States entrust the interpretation of the Constitution to anyone who can read? Of course not. That would be foolish and a recipe for anarchy.

God is not less wise than the US Government. God also does not entrust His Sciriptures to be interpreted correctly by anyone who can read. He entrusts that job to the one Institution which He calls the Pillar of Truth.


I do have a higher authority than yopur denomination. I follow Jesus and His word. That is a much higher authority than your denomination.

My denomination is the Church which Jesus built. And the Church which Jesus built is called the Pillar of Truth in the Bible. If you had a higher authority than that Church, you would be mentioned in said Bible, but you aren't.

So, try again. Just saying you have higher authority than the Church doesn't make it so.


I follow Jesus and His word.

Not true. You follow YOUR interpretation of Jesus word. That is not the same thing since your interpretation is erroneous.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You say that you have shown that your churches doctrines are not contrary to the word of God but we are the ones that showed you that purgatory is contradicting the word of God AND Jesus' sacrifice.

You've done no such thing.

I've shown you that Sola Scriptura contradicts the Bible and you agreed.

And I've shown you that Purgatory is very much in Scripture. And you agreed that indeed at the Judgement seat, works of iniquity will be burned. That is precisely Purgatory.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Where did I agree that sola scriptura contradicted the bible?

I also never said that works of iniquity would be burned
Did you misunderstand my reply?

IN fact I asked you if purgatory was before or after the judgment of the believers three times and you never did answer that.

Odd, I don't see the word "biblical" doctrine in there. I see where he said, "2 Timothy 2
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.

Taking it out of context, you wouldn't.


Nor do I. But, since Jesus created the Church, I accept her authority:

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.


My denomination is the Church which Jesus built. And the Church which Jesus built is called the Pillar of Truth in the Bible. If you had a higher authority than that Church, you would be mentioned in said Bible, but you aren't.

So, try again. Just saying you have higher authority than the Church doesn't make it so.

But the key here is - what is the church? It is NOT your denomination or any other. Scripture is abundantly clear on that point. A point that you seem unwilling to consider from a scriptural perspective. If you are looking at the wrong church, then you are taking your direction from the wrong source. The true church would never stray from God's written word.


Not true. You follow YOUR interpretation of Jesus word. That is not the same thing since your interpretation is erroneous.

I allow scripture to interpret itself.

where did I agree that sola scriptura contradicted the bible?

You said you didn't believe in Sola Scriptura here:

Message #26:

I never claimed to go by scripture only but that everything should be able to be backed by scripture.


I also never said that works of iniquity would be burned
Did you misunderstand my reply?

No. You agreed that works of iniquity is sin and you agreed that works are burned before the Judgement seat.

Message #223:


Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Ok. I get the reference. So works of iniquity are sin.

Now, are these works tested? If so, where?
In the Judgment of the unbelievers. The great white throne judgment.
Unsaved sinners will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.


IN fact I asked you if purgatory was before or after the judgment of the believers three times and you never did answer that.

Yes I did. Message #222


Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
You never did answer my question is purgatory before or after the judgment?

I believe it is the Judgement.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Taking it out of context, you wouldn't.

Since neither the word "biblical nor Scriptural is there anywhere, I would say that I've proved you took it out of context.


But the key here is - what is the church?

I agree.


It is NOT your denomination or any other. Scripture is abundantly clear on that point. A point that you seem unwilling to consider from a scriptural perspective. If you are looking at the wrong church, then you are taking your direction from the wrong source. The true church would never stray from God's written word.

1. The Catholic Church has never strayed from God's word.
2. It is the denominations which follow the tradition of men known as Sola Scriptura which have strayed from God's word.
3. The Church described in Scripture describes the Catholic Church:
Daily Mass:
Acts Of Apostles 2 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers...

Holy Eucharist:
1 Corinthians 10 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

One Shepherd:
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.

One Lord, One faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

One doctrine:
Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Justification by faith and works
James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith.

Prayer to Saints:
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.

Suffering to expiate sin:
1 Peter 4 1 Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sins:

Infallible Church:
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.

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

Teaching Church:
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.


I allow scripture to interpret itself.

Does Scripture say that it interprets itself? Or rather does Scripture say that it can be misunderstood?

2 Peter 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

And that they need to be explained:

Acts 8 27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Since neither the word "biblical nor Scriptural is there anywhere, I would say that I've proved you took it out of context.

Reaching for the bottom of the barrel with that one, aren't you? I am sure that you know that the words are descriptive of the doctrine and need not exist in the text (i.e trinity). I am ausre that you are also aware that this approach would be fatal to your "purgatory" argument.




But the key here is - what is the church?
I agree.

You say that you agree and then avoid the question.


1. The Catholic Church has never strayed from God's word.

I cannot believe that you even believe that - the doctrines such as purgatory and the belief in worshiping saints, Mary etc. are bad enough, but ever heard of the Borgia popes?


It is the denominations which follow the tradition of men known as Sola Scriptura which have strayed from God's word.

You've done a poor job of trying to defend that position. Indeed you have even indicated that you have mis-understood what the term means.


The Church described in Scripture describes the Catholic Church

There were no denominations in the 1st century.

But I do believe that there is a description of the Roman Church in the book of Revelation.

Reaching for the bottom of the barrel with that one, aren't you? I am sure that you know that the words are descriptive of the doctrine and need not exist in the text (i.e trinity). I am ausre that you are also aware that this approach would be fatal to your "purgatory" argument.

Wrong in both cases TJ.

First of all, the doctrines being taught are not necessarily explicit in Scripture. Therefore they have to be preached. And that is exactly what we are talking about. A Tradition which goes hand in hand with Scripture. Spreading the same information and more importantly putting it into practice from the time that Jesus mouthed the words.

And that is certainly not fatal to the idea of purgatory since even the Jews were praying for their dead before the advent of Jesus. This is explicitly taught in the Deuterocanonicals which Luther took out of the Christian Bible:

2 Machabees 12 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.


You say that you agree and then avoid the question.

No, I agree that in order to come to agreement, we must agree on what is the Church.

You believe the Church is an invisible amorphous entity composed of people who don't agree with each other on anything except that they can ignore the visible Church and that they can interpret Scripture any way the wind blows.

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.

With authority to make disciples of the world:
Luke 16 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

I believe my understanding is supported by Scripture.


I cannot believe that you even believe that - the doctrines such as purgatory and the belief in worshiping saints, Mary etc. are bad enough, but ever heard of the Borgia popes?

We don't worship Mary or the Saints. However, we do pray to them in imitation of Scripture:

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 1 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.


but ever heard of the Borgia popes?

Yes, I have.


You've done a poor job of trying to defend that position.

Actually, I think I've done a superlative job.


Indeed you have even indicated that you have mis-understood what the term means.

No actually, it is you who alleged that I didn't know what Sola Scriptura meant. And then when you finally provided your definition, it turned out to be almost exactly as the one I provided. Which was not mine but Luther's by the way.


There were no denominations in the 1st century.

True. Denominations are a result of Luther's reformation. In the first century only the Catholic Church existed.


But I do believe that there is a description of the Roman Church in the book of Revelation.

Yes, there is:
Apocalypse 21 9 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will show thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Reaching for the bottom of the barrel with that one, aren't you? I am sure that you know that the words are descriptive of the doctrine and need not exist in the text (i.e trinity). I am ausre that you are also aware that this approach would be fatal to your "purgatory" argument.

Wrong in both cases TJ.

First of all, the doctrines being taught are not necessarily explicit in Scripture. Therefore they have to be preached. And that is exactly what we are talking about. A Tradition which goes hand in hand with Scripture. Spreading the same information and more importantly putting it into practice from the time that Jesus mouthed the words.

And that is certainly not fatal to the idea of purgatory since even the Jews were praying for their dead before the advent of Jesus. This is explicitly taught in the Deuterocanonicals which Luther took out of the Christian Bible:

2 Machabees 12 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.


You say that you agree and then avoid the question.

No, I agree that in order to come to agreement, we must agree on what is the Church.

You believe the Church is an invisible amorphous entity composed of people who don't agree with each other on anything except that they can ignore the visible Church and that they can interpret Scripture any way the wind blows.

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.

With authority to make disciples of the world:
Luke 16 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

I believe my understanding is supported by Scripture.


I cannot believe that you even believe that - the doctrines such as purgatory and the belief in worshiping saints, Mary etc. are bad enough,

We don't worship Mary or the Saints. However, we do pray to them in imitation of Scripture:

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 1 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.


but ever heard of the Borgia popes?

Yes, I have.


You've done a poor job of trying to defend that position.

Actually, I think I've done a superlative job.


Indeed you have even indicated that you have mis-understood what the term means.

No actually, it is you who alleged that I didn't know what Sola Scriptura meant. And then when you finally provided your definition, it turned out to be almost exactly as the one I provided. Which was not mine but Luther's by the way.


There were no denominations in the 1st century.

True. Denominations are a result of Luther's reformation. In the first century only the Catholic Church existed.


But I do believe that there is a description of the Roman Church in the book of Revelation.

Yes, there is:
Apocalypse 21 9 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will show thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I believe the Church is the Body of Christ,
[I]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

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.


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

Wrong in both cases TJ.
First of all, the doctrines being taught are not necessarily explicit in Scripture. Therefore they have to be preached.

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


And that is certainly not fatal to the idea of purgatory since even the Jews were praying for their dead before the advent of Jesus.

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


No, I agree that in order to come to agreement, we must agree on what is the Church.

You believe the Church is an invisible amorphous entity composed of people who don't agree with each other on anything except that they can ignore the visible Church and that they can interpret Scripture any way the wind blows.

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


I believe the Church is the Body of Christ

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)


We don't worship Mary or the Saints. However, we do pray to them in imitation of Scripture

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.


No actually, it is you who alleged that I didn't know what Sola Scriptura meant. And then when you finally provided your definition, it turned out to be almost exactly as the one I provided. Which was not mine but Luther's by the way.

Then you did not read what I posted.

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

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!?