[De Maria]

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

Why yes. That is correct.

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

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

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scriptures alone, or church with them?

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

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

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

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

Peace be with you.

Free Dream

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

Note: Present tense, not past tense.

[De Maria]

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

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

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

Note: Present tense, not past tense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

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

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

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

[De Maria]

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

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

If you could address them you would.

[Tj3]

If you could address them you would.

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

[De Maria]

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

Nope, you didn't.

[Tj3]

Nope, you didn't.

See - you weren't listening.

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

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

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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

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

[arcura]

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

[ScottRC]

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

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

Evangelical Protestantism? :confused:

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

[Tj3]

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

Fred,

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