First Church?

[LysanderShapiro]

I read your answer and also brushed up on the inquisition subject, from what I read the rulers of the countries loved the inquisition, they profited well from wealth confiscation, to land confiscation, killing people with them having no representation, if the catholic church was so innocent then why did your leader make a public apology in the early 2000s, as far as luther I really can careless for the man, it seems like when ever there is somebody that disagrees with the catholic church they go to luther, I did not know him, and he has nothing to do with what I believe.

To begin, did you find any sound evidence for how the Church WAS responsible, or are you putting the responsibility on the Church because Pope JP II made a public apology in 2000? The apology (like the apology made for the holocaust and Galileo) were made because while they weren't responsible for anything bad, there is still a moral case for stepping in even more. The pope then only attempted to put it to a halt. The discussion still remains on if it could have gone further.

I see you have a series of "machine gun" questions to corner Catholicism. You're doing this because the subject of "Fathers" has been worn out. I think we should still talk about that since it hasn't been finalized with you. But still, I'll do my best to answer these questions you have.

questions
1 why the obelisk, if there is no more paganism in the catholic church destroy it.

First, to say "No more paganism in the Catholic Church" is a false statement as it implies there has been paganism in the Church. If you mean subjects and items with pagan history, then well, yes -- pretty much every Christian denomination has this. Take the celebration of Easter for example...this originated as a pagan celebration for "Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" -- a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

Easter, the Christian celebration, despite its pagan background, has been adapted by Christianity to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

2 what was rome before it became the catholic church, from my understanding, lots of idols and paganism.

Yep. Rome was known as Pagan Rome before Constantine's conversion to Christianity. Rome has a long history of persecuting Catholics. In the 300s, Constantine became the first emperor to reject paganism and turn to Christ and made Catholicism the official religion of Rome. However, he also initiated the Edict of Tolerance restricting persecutions of other religions.

He was probably not a saintly Catholic, but he brought Christianity to Rome and kicked paganism out. Though a common misconception is that Constantine founded Catholicism (which of course is false as even the term "Catholic Church" was used since the first century).

3 why are the priest celibate, Arron was a High Priest, he had children, Moses he had children, I believe most of the High Priest had children.

Priests being celibate isn't a dogmatic position the Church holds -- in fact, priests technically CAN get married. However, 1 Corinthians 7:8 mentions the how it is better in doing God's service unmarried. Priests not marrying is not dogmatic, but rather a discipline.

4 idols, and praying to idols and these dead saints, have not found that one yet.

First, the Church rejects idols. Only God deserves our worship. No praying to idols because an idolatry is commanded by God NOT to participate in. If you are addressing the subject of things like statues, then it needs to be looked at in context. For instance, look at passages like Numbers 21:8 and Exodus 25:18. This wouldn't be idolatry. Idolatry is when you put something above God or worship something other than God.

What is a dead saint? Do you mean a saint in heaven? To begin, do we or do we not have eternal life in heaven? If so, then are the saints in heaven still part of the body of Christ or not? If so, then why should they be left out when we ask them to pray for us?

5 nuns do not see that one in the Bible either.

Nuns and Sisters (one is a cloister and the other isn't) are women who devote their lives in service to God. Not sure how that is a bad thing. The orders themselves were instituted post Biblical times, but there is reference to their model in the Bible -- for instance, 1 Timothy 5:9 is a good example.

That aside, can you show me just one verse that supports Sola Scriptura? That's what you're going by, right?

6 purgatory not there either.

It is indeed. Will you find the word "Purgatory" in the Bible? No, you won't. Just like how you won't find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. However, both terms were made to express these things that are mentioned Biblically.

While you will probably reject the deuterocanon, I will only reference verses that can be found in the Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes 12:14, Psalm 66:12, Isaiah 4:4, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, 1 Corinthians 15:29. Why is this? Because no one can enter heaven imperfectly as expressed in Revelation 21:27.

7 praying for dead people can not find.

This is connected to the Purgatory answer. Praying for the dead is praying for the souls in purgatory. To understand this you need to understand what Purgatory is and what Purgatory is not.

Can you show me one verse that supports Sola Scriptura? It's a crucial question in addressing these things.

8 praying for people who committed suicide, and offering money to pray them to heaven, not in the Bible, except for the love of money is the root of all evil.

Offering money to pray them to heaven? Can you explain this one to me?
Also Praying for people who committed suicide is the same question as number 7. Indeed, the love of money is the root of all evil as this is Biblical.

9 paying for an annulment of marriage have not read that one.

Is it the annulment or the paying for it that you're confused about? Paying for one isn't some sort of dogmatic position of the Church -- some people don't have to pay for it. It's a service provided and it depends on the diocese going if there are expenses involved. I've never had an annulment, so I don't know what costs are involved, but it's not part of Catholic doctrine if that's what you're concerned about...though I know some do offer to do it without payment, especially if the couple can't afford it.

10 the newest one of them all the non-believers will make it to heaven just as long as they do good, according to The Word of God, thats a false teacher, can only be saved by faith, works of the spirit of God, and charity,

You seem to have it wrong because you're mistaking this as a subject of "working your way into heaven" which the Church is against (read the entire Council of Trent where they discuss justification). This is a statement of those who may not have had the full understanding and opportunity to fully grasp the understanding of God and his commandments. God is a just God, no? He's a merciful God. If one directly rejects Him, they are hell-bound, but who are we to say one won't go to heaven due to his misunderstanding or lack of opportunity?

This has been a subject of much discussion among laity and clergy alike and what this statement is. I only understand a portion of it, but I do know it's not as simple as you may think it is. It brings to question people like the indigenous who have not met a missionary or people who have not been exposed to Christianity.

Ephesians 2:8-9
King James Version (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Indeed, man cannot work his way into heaven. And faith is necessary in entering into Heaven. However, if you're bringing into question the aspect of works, I encourage you to read James 2:20-26. In 26, it says that Faith without Works is dead. In fact, the only place in the Bible where you will see the words "Faith" and "Alone" together is in verse 24 where it says "You see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone."

Matthew 7:22-25
King James Version (KJV)

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

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

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

I hope I have provided some insight to your questions.

Perhaps we should get back to the topic of Fathers.

OR

Please answer this ONE question for me...

...Where in the Bible does it point to itself as the exclusive infallible source of Christian practice? Where is Sola Scriptura taught? Please help me with this.

Thanks

 

[Michael B]

To begin, did you find any sound evidence for how the Church WAS responsible, or are you putting the responsibility on the Church because Pope JP II made a public apology in 2000? The apology (like the apology made for the holocaust and Galileo) were made because while they weren't responsible for anything bad, there is still a moral case for stepping in even more. The pope then only attempted to put it to a halt. The discussion still remains on if it could have gone further.

I see you have a series of "machine gun" questions to corner Catholicism. You're doing this because the subject of "Fathers" has been worn out. I think we should still talk about that since it hasn't been finalized with you. But still, I'll do my best to answer these questions you have.



First, to say "No more paganism in the Catholic Church" is a false statement as it implies there has been paganism in the Church. If you mean subjects and items with pagan history, then well, yes -- pretty much every Christian denomination has this. Take the celebration of Easter for example...this originated as a pagan celebration for "Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" -- a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

Easter, the Christian celebration, despite its pagan background, has been adapted by Christianity to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.



Yep. Rome was known as Pagan Rome before Constantine's conversion to Christianity. Rome has a long history of persecuting Catholics. In the 300s, Constantine became the first emperor to reject paganism and turn to Christ and made Catholicism the official religion of Rome. However, he also initiated the Edict of Tolerance restricting persecutions of other religions.

He was probably not a saintly Catholic, but he brought Christianity to Rome and kicked paganism out. Though a common misconception is that Constantine founded Catholicism (which of course is false as even the term "Catholic Church" was used since the first century).



Priests being celibate isn't a dogmatic position the Church holds -- in fact, priests technically CAN get married. However, 1 Corinthians 7:8 mentions the how it is better in doing God's service unmarried. Priests not marrying is not dogmatic, but rather a discipline.



First, the Church rejects idols. Only God deserves our worship. No praying to idols because an idolatry is commanded by God NOT to participate in. If you are addressing the subject of things like statues, then it needs to be looked at in context. For instance, look at passages like Numbers 21:8 and Exodus 25:18. This wouldn't be idolatry. Idolatry is when you put something above God or worship something other than God.

What is a dead saint? Do you mean a saint in heaven? To begin, do we or do we not have eternal life in heaven? If so, then are the saints in heaven still part of the body of Christ or not? If so, then why should they be left out when we ask them to pray for us?



Nuns and Sisters (one is a cloister and the other isn't) are women who devote their lives in service to God. Not sure how that is a bad thing. The orders themselves were instituted post Biblical times, but there is reference to their model in the Bible -- for instance, 1 Timothy 5:9 is a good example.

That aside, can you show me just one verse that supports Sola Scriptura? That's what you're going by, right?



It is indeed. Will you find the word "Purgatory" in the Bible? No, you won't. Just like how you won't find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. However, both terms were made to express these things that are mentioned Biblically.

While you will probably reject the deuterocanon, I will only reference verses that can be found in the Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes 12:14, Psalm 66:12, Isaiah 4:4, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, 1 Corinthians 15:29. Why is this? Because no one can enter heaven imperfectly as expressed in Revelation 21:27.



This is connected to the Purgatory answer. Praying for the dead is praying for the souls in purgatory. To understand this you need to understand what Purgatory is and what Purgatory is not.

Can you show me one verse that supports Sola Scriptura? It's a crucial question in addressing these things.



Offering money to pray them to heaven? Can you explain this one to me?
Also Praying for people who committed suicide is the same question as number 7. Indeed, the love of money is the root of all evil as this is Biblical.



Is it the annulment or the paying for it that you're confused about? Paying for one isn't some sort of dogmatic position of the Church -- some people don't have to pay for it. It's a service provided and it depends on the diocese going if there are expenses involved. I've never had an annulment, so I don't know what costs are involved, but it's not part of Catholic doctrine if that's what you're concerned about...though I know some do offer to do it without payment, especially if the couple can't afford it.



You seem to have it wrong because you're mistaking this as a subject of "working your way into heaven" which the Church is against (read the entire Council of Trent where they discuss justification). This is a statement of those who may not have had the full understanding and opportunity to fully grasp the understanding of God and his commandments. God is a just God, no? He's a merciful God. If one directly rejects Him, they are hell-bound, but who are we to say one won't go to heaven due to his misunderstanding or lack of opportunity?

This has been a subject of much discussion among laity and clergy alike and what this statement is. I only understand a portion of it, but I do know it's not as simple as you may think it is. It brings to question people like the indigenous who have not met a missionary or people who have not been exposed to Christianity.



Indeed, man cannot work his way into heaven. And faith is necessary in entering into Heaven. However, if you're bringing into question the aspect of works, I encourage you to read James 2:20-26. In 26, it says that Faith without Works is dead. In fact, the only place in the Bible where you will see the words "Faith" and "Alone" together is in verse 24 where it says "You see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone."



I hope I have provided some insight to your questions.

Perhaps we should get back to the topic of Fathers.

OR

Please answer this ONE question for me...

...Where in the Bible does it point to itself as the exclusive infallible source of Christian practice? Where is Sola Scriptura taught? Please help me with this.

Thanks

Your request is easy. I will answer your previous questions tomorrow, but for the last I will answer it tonight.

John 1:1-14
King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God was the word and the word became flesh, can not side track around this one.

1 Corinthians 4:6
King James Version (KJV)

6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

men are lower then The Word of God.

Luke 1:1-4
King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Ministers of The Word

Matthew 4:1-11
King James Version (KJV)

4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

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.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Jesus rebukes the devil three times saying: for it is written, even the devil new The Word read verse 6. Every time Jesus goes back to The Word, and says: for it is written.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version (KJV)

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

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

All scripture not some, but all

Revelation 19:11-13
King James Version (KJV)

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

His name is called The Word of God, how powerful is that it is beautiful.

I have to say one thing, this is the first time I have ever heard that the catholics do not believe Jesus wrote the Bible, that is amazing now I can see why the catholics are so deceived, they think they can change it to there best liking, God wrote the Bible John 1:1, no doubt about that, if you are not going to read the Bible as the literal Word of God, I can or know one else can ever help, only Jesus can, this is why so many people claim to be catholic they think they can out smart Jesus and sneak into heaven, I can not believe that some one actually thinks they can change the way or what the Bible says because they think its a starting place, The Word of God the Bible is the only way through Jesus Christ, now I can see why you kept saying interpret, there is no interpreting the Bible, it says exactly what God says it supposed too because that is the way he wrote it.

 

[Michael B]

I almost forgot Hebrews

Hebrews 4:12
King James Version (KJV)

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[ixoye_8]

His name is called The Word of God, how powerful is that it is beautiful.

I have to say one thing, this is the first time I have ever heard that the catholics do not believe Jesus wrote the Bible, that is amazing now I can see why the catholics are so deceived, they think they can change it to there best liking, God wrote the Bible John 1:1, no doubt about that, if you are not going to read the Bible as the literal Word of God, I can or know one else can ever help, only Jesus can, this is why so many people claim to be catholic they think they can out smart Jesus and sneak into heaven, I can not believe that some one actually thinks they can change the way or what the Bible says because they think its a starting place, The Word of God the Bible is the only way through Jesus Christ, now I can see why you kept saying interpret, there is no interpreting the Bible, it says exactly what God says it supposed too because that is the way he wrote it.

2Ti 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

so what is meant by God ???

Jhn 14:26
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

hmmm .. like the Gospel of John .. chap 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 ???
5 full chapters of what Jesus said at the Passover before His crucifixion ???
that John wrote possibly 25 years after it happened ???
either the HS told the Apostles what to write or they had photographic memories ,,

Jesus did not write it .. scriptures says the HS helped them write it ..

sorry .. I do not trust the Texus Recptucus or the KJV .. the people that created both were hardly of God and put their own dogma into them ..
use a REAL bible ..

 

[ixoye_8]

I use the NASB, which goes off ancient Greek mss ..
the KJV (which is the church of England's bible) ..
goes off of Greek created about 1600 ad ..


here is a bible I found to be very accurate in translating ..
http://www.bible.catholic.net/index.php?idlib=::Choose::

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Your request is easy. I will answer your previous questions tomorrow, but for the last I will answer it tonight.

John 1:1-14
King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God was the word and the word became flesh, can not side track around this one.

1 Corinthians 4:6
King James Version (KJV)

6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

men are lower then The Word of God.

Luke 1:1-4
King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Ministers of The Word

Matthew 4:1-11
King James Version (KJV)

4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

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.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Jesus rebukes the devil three times saying: for it is written, even the devil new The Word read verse 6. Every time Jesus goes back to The Word, and says: for it is written.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version (KJV)

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

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

All scripture not some, but all

Revelation 19:11-13
King James Version (KJV)

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

His name is called The Word of God, how powerful is that it is beautiful.

I have to say one thing, this is the first time I have ever heard that the catholics do not believe Jesus wrote the Bible, that is amazing now I can see why the catholics are so deceived, they think they can change it to there best liking, God wrote the Bible John 1:1, no doubt about that, if you are not going to read the Bible as the literal Word of God, I can or know one else can ever help, only Jesus can, this is why so many people claim to be catholic they think they can out smart Jesus and sneak into heaven, I can not believe that some one actually thinks they can change the way or what the Bible says because they think its a starting place, The Word of God the Bible is the only way through Jesus Christ, now I can see why you kept saying interpret, there is no interpreting the Bible, it says exactly what God says it supposed too because that is the way he wrote it.

Michael, I'm afraid you have it misunderstood if you think I'm hinting at the idea that Catholics don't believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God...WE DO! The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. How many times have I said that already?

Catholics believe the Bible IS INDEED God-breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why do you say Catholics don't believe that?

MY question is where does the Bible point to itself as the EXCLUSIVE (meaning ONLY) source of Christian practice? This isn't me asking where does the Bible say it is inspired by God. So far, you haven't provided a valid answer, and here's why...

I agree 100% with these verses (and why wouldn't I? I believe in all of the Bible, every word) -- but your interpretation is flawed as you're implying that the Word instantly equals the written Word of God. Catholics believe the Word of God isn't strictly the written Word.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Timothy 3:15 says
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

You raised a new question that aligns with the subject of Sola Scriptura; can you show me one verse that points us to believe why The Word of God is strictly the written Word?

AGAIN: I am NOT, (REPEAT) AM NOT saying the Bible is not part of the Word of God -- my point is that the scriptures doesn't point to itself as as the exclusive source as it does not discredit the Church, the Bible wasn't completed by the time the Church was founded by Christ, and most people didn't couldn't even afford a bible until about the 17th or 18th century, let alone be able to read it -- they required Church authority. Catholics compiled, shared, first made mass print of, and cherish the Bible. Please -- do your homework on this!

Please let me know.

Did you ask those machine gun questions out of curiosity or in order to try and prove something?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

as far as luther I really can careless for the man, it seems like when ever there is somebody that disagrees with the catholic church they go to luther, I did not know him, and he has nothing to do with what I believe.

Here's why...

Luther, whether you like the guy or not, is the foundation for which the Protestant Reformation began -- he's the pioneer. The substance of Protestantism began with Luther. When I was a Protestant, I didn't give a hoot about the guy -- made no difference to me. I wasn't even a Lutheran, I was a non-denominational. However, I had to give credit to wear credit was due. Had it not been for Luther, I suspected I'd be a dirty, rotten, anti-Bible, statue-worshiping, "Cookie Christ" worshiping, Mary-worshiping, Pope-worshiping, Working-His-Way-Into-Heaven, Bible-adding, Pedophile-supporting, Paganistic, evil Catholic. And I suspected that had I been a Catholic, I wouldn't know one bit about my faith, wouldn't be able to quote one Bible verse, and would be able to sin as freely as possible because, hey, that's what confession is for.

Back then, I was just as ignorant about Catholicism as you are--with all due respect of course. I had a distorted, bastardized idea of what Catholicism was, just as you do.

I was always shocked when I met Catholics who had once been Protestants -- these were smart, college-educated, astute people who knew their faith quite well too. "How?" I'd ask. "You're way too smart to be a Catholic!"

 

[LysanderShapiro]

now I can see why you kept saying interpret, there is no interpreting the Bible, it says exactly what God says it supposed too because that is the way he wrote it.

Friend, if that's the case...if you read any passage as you wish (and it sounds like it is all very black-and-white rather than in context) then why is it that you reject the Body of Blood of Christ being transubstantiate? Why is the Eucharist only seen as figurative when Christ himself said "This is my body" in Luke 22:19? Or the importance of it as told by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29?

The Bible is not one solid book, it is a collection of books, written by different authors in different times, and it is filled with different genres. There is poetry, instructions, true stories, parables, and historical recounts.

 

[Michael B]

2Ti 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

so what is meant by God ???

Jhn 14:26
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

hmmm .. like the Gospel of John .. chap 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 ???
5 full chapters of what Jesus said at the Passover before His crucifixion ???
that John wrote possibly 25 years after it happened ???
either the HS told the Apostles what to write or they had photographic memories ,,

Jesus did not write it .. scriptures says the HS helped them write it ..

sorry .. I do not trust the Texus Recptucus or the KJV .. the people that created both were hardly of God and put their own dogma into them ..
use a REAL bible ..

Holy Ghost, Jesus, and God are all the same, so to say Jesus did not write the Bible would also be wrong, man was just and instrument of God, Jesus used man to write the scriptures. The Bible word for word is true if the catholics think it up for interpretation, we will all find out on the day of judgement.

 

[Michael B]

Michael, I'm afraid you have it misunderstood if you think I'm hinting at the idea that Catholics don't believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God...WE DO! The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. How many times have I said that already?

Catholics believe the Bible IS INDEED God-breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why do you say Catholics don't believe that?

MY question is where does the Bible point to itself as the EXCLUSIVE (meaning ONLY) source of Christian practice? This isn't me asking where does the Bible say it is inspired by God. So far, you haven't provided a valid answer, and here's why...

I agree 100% with these verses (and why wouldn't I? I believe in all of the Bible, every word) -- but your interpretation is flawed as you're implying that the Word instantly equals the written Word of God. Catholics believe the Word of God isn't strictly the written Word.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Timothy 3:15 says
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

You raised a new question that aligns with the subject of Sola Scriptura; can you show me one verse that points us to believe why The Word of God is strictly the written Word?

AGAIN: I am NOT, (REPEAT) AM NOT saying the Bible is not part of the Word of God -- my point is that the scriptures doesn't point to itself as as the exclusive source as it does not discredit the Church, the Bible wasn't completed by the time the Church was founded by Christ, and most people didn't couldn't even afford a bible until about the 17th or 18th century, let alone be able to read it -- they required Church authority. Catholics compiled, shared, first made mass print of, and cherish the Bible. Please -- do your homework on this!

Please let me know.

Did you ask those machine gun questions out of curiosity or in order to try and prove something?

I will answer your questions on the other subjects tonight had a few minutes here to answer this one.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Like you said not everyone had Bibles back then so they are talking about the traditions that they were taught from the scriptures, when they used to sit down and read them, this does not say to come up with your own, and just as long as it sounds like The Word of God, it's ok, he talking about The Word that was already preached to these people ounce before and not to forget. Not Jewish traditions, not traditions of man, not traditions of babylon, but the traditions of Jesus.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Holy Ghost, Jesus, and God are all the same, so to say Jesus did not write the Bible would also be wrong, man was just and instrument of God, Jesus used man to write the scriptures. The Bible word for word is true if the catholics think it up for interpretation, we will all find out on the day of judgement.

I actually agree with you here.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. In ixoye_8's defense, he was meaning it in a technical sense. For instance, Jesus and God the Father are one, but we wouldn't regard Jesus as the Father because Jesus is the Son...even though they are indeed one.

And you are right, the Bible is not up for personal interpretation as that would be watering down the objectivity of the scriptures. It's not up for personal interpretation. However, the Bible is still in need of understanding as many can't understand it, and some people can't even read it. So who becomes the voice in explaining the meaning of the scriptures?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I will answer your questions on the other subjects tonight had a few minutes here to answer this one.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Like you said not everyone had Bibles back then so they are talking about the traditions that they were taught from the scriptures, when they used to sit down and read them, this does not say to come up with your own, and just as long as it sounds like The Word of God, it's ok, he talking about The Word that was already preached to these people ounce before and not to forget. Not Jewish traditions, not traditions of man, not traditions of babylon, but the traditions of Jesus.

Indeed, the passage has nothing to do with coming up with traditions of man. The Catholic Church would agree with that sentiment -- traditions of man negate the Word of God.

The scriptures were still being written, hadn't been finally completed until around 90 AD (more or less), and then they hadn't been compiled until the 4th century. You made a fair statement in that because not everyone had access to the written Word (or could even read it then), it was necessary for them to get their information from Church authority. I absolutely agree. And it was the Church's responsibility to pass this written information to the people.

Though it was also before the scriptures were written, the authority was presented by word of mouth. Though the authority of Christ given to the Church via the Holy Spirit, this is where the notion that God's Word isn't limited to the scriptures, but also to Church authority.

This becomes difficult to explain because even the word "Church" gets confusing. Some think the Church strictly means the laity (that is, the people). Some believe it means the clergy (the priests, bishops, etc.) While both are actually true as we make up the body of Christ, the best explanation for what the Church is is the mystical body of Christ. The entity, or even soul, of this body Christ left for us.

For instance, you are visible -- you are a body with arms, legs, a head, etc. However, you are also invisible. You are a soul, unique and made in God's image. You have two different dimensions -- physical and mystical. This is also how the Church is. And this is why it is not seen as blasphemous or idolatrous when terms like "Church Teaching" or "Church Authority" arise. They are consistent with Jesus being in authority to man, and not man sliding in to instill his own ideas.

 

[Ricko1]

Which was the first church? I've heard Eastern Orthodox, Catholic church, and Messianic Jews. Is there anyway to really know or is this another thing that is always going to be debated?

The First Christian Church started on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem in the upper room with The Apostles and Mary the Mother of Jesus and 120 others. Read Acts Chapters 1 & 2.

 

[Michael B]

I actually agree with you here.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. In ixoye_8's defense, he was meaning it in a technical sense. For instance, Jesus and God the Father are one, but we wouldn't regard Jesus as the Father because Jesus is the Son...even though they are indeed one.

And you are right, the Bible is not up for personal interpretation as that would be watering down the objectivity of the scriptures. It's not up for personal interpretation. However, the Bible is still in need of understanding as many can't understand it, and some people can't even read it. So who becomes the voice in explaining the meaning of the scriptures?

I agree some people have a hard time understanding the Bible, but also the Bible was written so if a man picked up the Bible and actually opened the pages in the Bible and started reading they could gain understanding, sadly this day in age the Bible stay on there stands or in there closets, or in there night stands, know one wants to ever open the pages.

As far as Jesus the son of God is more like a parable, Jesus and God are the same, Jesus even tells Thomas and Phillip as well. Some things Jesus says out loud so the people around him can understand, he could just do and not even speak a word.

John 11:41-42
King James Version (KJV)

41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 14:1-17
King James Version (KJV)

14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 

[Michael B]

Indeed, the passage has nothing to do with coming up with traditions of man. The Catholic Church would agree with that sentiment -- traditions of man negate the Word of God.

The scriptures were still being written, hadn't been finally completed until around 90 AD (more or less), and then they hadn't been compiled until the 4th century. You made a fair statement in that because not everyone had access to the written Word (or could even read it then), it was necessary for them to get their information from Church authority. I absolutely agree. And it was the Church's responsibility to pass this written information to the people.

Though it was also before the scriptures were written, the authority was presented by word of mouth. Though the authority of Christ given to the Church via the Holy Spirit, this is where the notion that God's Word isn't limited to the scriptures, but also to Church authority.

This becomes difficult to explain because even the word "Church" gets confusing. Some think the Church strictly means the laity (that is, the people). Some believe it means the clergy (the priests, bishops, etc.) While both are actually true as we make up the body of Christ, the best explanation for what the Church is is the mystical body of Christ. The entity, or even soul, of this body Christ left for us.

For instance, you are visible -- you are a body with arms, legs, a head, etc. However, you are also invisible. You are a soul, unique and made in God's image. You have two different dimensions -- physical and mystical. This is also how the Church is. And this is why it is not seen as blasphemous or idolatrous when terms like "Church Teaching" or "Church Authority" arise. They are consistent with Jesus being in authority to man, and not man sliding in to instill his own ideas.

Jesus being in authority to man, do you not mean Jesus is the authority of man. I agree on the church part, the head of the Church is Jesus he is the chief corner stone, he can give and take away.

 

[Michael B]

Friend, if that's the case...if you read any passage as you wish (and it sounds like it is all very black-and-white rather than in context) then why is it that you reject the Body of Blood of Christ being transubstantiate? Why is the Eucharist only seen as figurative when Christ himself said "This is my body" in Luke 22:19? Or the importance of it as told by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29?

The Bible is not one solid book, it is a collection of books, written by different authors in different times, and it is filled with different genres. There is poetry, instructions, true stories, parables, and historical recounts.

I know the Bible is not one sold book, the oldest Books are Job, and Jeremiah, Moses wrote Genesis-Numbers. I do not reject the Body and Blood of Jesus, in Revelation there garments were cleaned through the Blood of Jesus.

 

[Michael B]

Here's why...

Luther, whether you like the guy or not, is the foundation for which the Protestant Reformation began -- he's the pioneer. The substance of Protestantism began with Luther. When I was a Protestant, I didn't give a hoot about the guy -- made no difference to me. I wasn't even a Lutheran, I was a non-denominational. However, I had to give credit to wear credit was due. Had it not been for Luther, I suspected I'd be a dirty, rotten, anti-Bible, statue-worshiping, "Cookie Christ" worshiping, Mary-worshiping, Pope-worshiping, Working-His-Way-Into-Heaven, Bible-adding, Pedophile-supporting, Paganistic, evil Catholic. And I suspected that had I been a Catholic, I wouldn't know one bit about my faith, wouldn't be able to quote one Bible verse, and would be able to sin as freely as possible because, hey, that's what confession is for.

Back then, I was just as ignorant about Catholicism as you are--with all due respect of course. I had a distorted, bastardized idea of what Catholicism was, just as you do.

I was always shocked when I met Catholics who had once been Protestants -- these were smart, college-educated, astute people who knew their faith quite well too. "How?" I'd ask. "You're way too smart to be a Catholic!"

As far as luther goes he was just the first man notable enough to get credit from walking away from the catholic church, I sure there were more people before him that broke away, luther has nothing to do with me, also in the statement there is an assumption that the catholic church was one of the first chuches, and a Godly church, that is just an assumption, the day of Pentecost on the upper room was the beginning of the Church, and the Christian. During this conversation there is the implication that pagan rome, became Christian rome, I still never saw the transformation, the main symbol for paganism is in there own square the obelisk, and if they cut there pagan ways this would have been taken down, but it still remains. Just because someone says something does not mean they are that, there is also the assumption that the Bible is not infallible Word of God, and that a priest much teach the true meaning, saying that if someone flew a Bible from South Korea too North Korea, and they picked it up, without a catholic priest they would be lost instead of just reading the scriptures, The Word of God. As far as Constantine goes he was pagan his mother was Christian, she wanted the Bible to be compiled together from what I have read, Constantine did not accept Christ until he was on his death bed.

 

[Michael B]

Michael, I'm afraid you have it misunderstood if you think I'm hinting at the idea that Catholics don't believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God...WE DO! The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. How many times have I said that already?

Catholics believe the Bible IS INDEED God-breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why do you say Catholics don't believe that?

MY question is where does the Bible point to itself as the EXCLUSIVE (meaning ONLY) source of Christian practice? This isn't me asking where does the Bible say it is inspired by God. So far, you haven't provided a valid answer, and here's why...

I agree 100% with these verses (and why wouldn't I? I believe in all of the Bible, every word) -- but your interpretation is flawed as you're implying that the Word instantly equals the written Word of God. Catholics believe the Word of God isn't strictly the written Word.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Timothy 3:15 says
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

You raised a new question that aligns with the subject of Sola Scriptura; can you show me one verse that points us to believe why The Word of God is strictly the written Word?

AGAIN: I am NOT, (REPEAT) AM NOT saying the Bible is not part of the Word of God -- my point is that the scriptures doesn't point to itself as as the exclusive source as it does not discredit the Church, the Bible wasn't completed by the time the Church was founded by Christ, and most people didn't couldn't even afford a bible until about the 17th or 18th century, let alone be able to read it -- they required Church authority. Catholics compiled, shared, first made mass print of, and cherish the Bible. Please -- do your homework on this!

Please let me know.

Did you ask those machine gun questions out of curiosity or in order to try and prove something?

As far as this word goes sola scriptua goes I can not find a good definition of what it means, you are the first person I have ever heard to use the word, as far as I can see the way the catholics use the word is for a guide, I use for the entire truth no deviation, but I really do not even know what that word really means lots of definitions for those two words.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

As far as luther goes he was just the first man notable enough to get credit from walking away from the catholic church, I sure there were more people before him that broke away, luther has nothing to do with me, also in the statement there is an assumption that the catholic church was one of the first chuches, and a Godly church, that is just an assumption, the day of Pentecost on the upper room was the beginning of the Church, and the Christian. During this conversation there is the implication that pagan rome, became Christian rome, I still never saw the transformation, the main symbol for paganism is in there own square the obelisk, and if they cut there pagan ways this would have been taken down, but it still remains. Just because someone says something does not mean they are that, there is also the assumption that the Bible is not infallible Word of God, and that a priest much teach the true meaning, saying that if someone flew a Bible from South Korea too North Korea, and they picked it up, without a catholic priest they would be lost instead of just reading the scriptures, The Word of God. As far as Constantine goes he was pagan his mother was Christian, she wanted the Bible to be compiled together from what I have read, Constantine did not accept Christ until he was on his death bed.

Just like it's more difficult for an adult to pick up a language than a baby, it's more difficult to understand a religion when you have a sort of foundation elsewhere. This was the case for me, that's for sure.

The reason why Christian Rome is no longer Pagan Rome is because it embraces the same church discussed in the scriptures and even by the early Church father, like Ignatius of Antioch, Athanasius, Polycarp -- these were incredible men of Christ, post scriptures.

I think if Christians are concerned about the adaptions of certain things, even if they aren't practiced in the pagan sense, then there's a lot that Christians need to look at. For instance, Easter perhaps shouldn't be celebrated, God may need a new title since "God" was also a title Pagans used for their own gods, Christian symbols like the cross and the fish -- though just because they had been born pagan doesn't mean they remained Pagan. Easter became the celebration of Christ's resurrection, the title of God is addressing the true God, and the Christian symbols are now images of faith and hope.

Catholics don't assume that the Bible is infallible. In fact, Catholics address the Bible as infallible in multiple sources, from the Council of Trent to the Catechism (I'll look for which paragraph states this) and even to the Apostle's Creed. However, Church interpretation is a big part of the scriptures, and it's because misinterpretations has lead to heresies and chaos. The Church doesn't want to keep people from reading the Bible -- the Church promotes it in fact, BUT it does have apostolic authority in providing an infallible interpretation, and this authority coming from God.

From what you read about Constantine isn't true -- though it is one of the many rumors about him. One rumor is that he DID convert early, but began beheading anyone who wasn't a Christian. Another rumor is that he wanted to make the pope and emperor synonymous as one.

I had to do a lot of studying and speak with multiple priests and protestant pastors to figure out the truth. I knew simply reading sources online could only go so far, and I'd run the risk of getting bad info. Living in DC, I had the opportunity to visit the friary at Catholic University of America and speak with some jesuits, as well as speaking with some well-respected pastors who are friends of my family (two having their PhDs in theology and Christian studies).

It takes effort and a sense of humility because it means being willing to admit being wrong...and I was wrong for 25 years.

 

[Michael B]

Just like it's more difficult for an adult to pick up a language than a baby, it's more difficult to understand a religion when you have a sort of foundation elsewhere. This was the case for me, that's for sure.

The reason why Christian Rome is no longer Pagan Rome is because it embraces the same church discussed in the scriptures and even by the early Church father, like Ignatius of Antioch, Athanasius, Polycarp -- these were incredible men of Christ, post scriptures.

I think if Christians are concerned about the adaptions of certain things, even if they aren't practiced in the pagan sense, then there's a lot that Christians need to look at. For instance, Easter perhaps shouldn't be celebrated, God may need a new title since "God" was also a title Pagans used for their own gods, Christian symbols like the cross and the fish -- though just because they had been born pagan doesn't mean they remained Pagan. Easter became the celebration of Christ's resurrection, the title of God is addressing the true God, and the Christian symbols are now images of faith and hope.

Catholics don't assume that the Bible is infallible. In fact, Catholics address the Bible as infallible in multiple sources, from the Council of Trent to the Catechism (I'll look for which paragraph states this) and even to the Apostle's Creed. However, Church interpretation is a big part of the scriptures, and it's because misinterpretations has lead to heresies and chaos. The Church doesn't want to keep people from reading the Bible -- the Church promotes it in fact, BUT it does have apostolic authority in providing an infallible interpretation, and this authority coming from God.

From what you read about Constantine isn't true -- though it is one of the many rumors about him. One rumor is that he DID convert early, but began beheading anyone who wasn't a Christian. Another rumor is that he wanted to make the pope and emperor synonymous as one.

I had to do a lot of studying and speak with multiple priests and protestant pastors to figure out the truth. I knew simply reading sources online could only go so far, and I'd run the risk of getting bad info. Living in DC, I had the opportunity to visit the friary at Catholic University of America and speak with some jesuits, as well as speaking with some well-respected pastors who are friends of my family (two having their PhDs in theology and Christian studies).

It takes effort and a sense of humility because it means being willing to admit being wrong...and I was wrong for 25 years.

God was before any pagan, and in the New Testament we get the name God wants us to use Jesus, because he saw that the word god was to much of a loosely used name, he wanted it define from all others, also the pagans stole the word god from God, Jesus wants nothing in our way to worship him, including saints statues idols objects nature of any thing else just him, judgement has not come yet, so to say these saints that are the saints of God can do nothing, have not been judged know one has dead or living. Is not the catholic church about ready to make someone a saint in there own eyes, is that not taking the authority of God away, who is to say that God sees this person as a saint. Jesus know who is written in the Book of Life, but everyone is waiting for the resurrection of the church, has not happened yet or I am in trouble.