OSAS : Gnostic Heresy

[Big Boy Johnson]

God has His Truth.
I have my Truth.
You have your Truth.

False!

God has His Word which IS Truth.

Those not agreeing with God's Word have lies.

 

[Taken]

You are on confused and angry little man . . .

You have accurately described yourself!
Not news.

There is only TRUTH. Truth is not relative - as YOU want it to be.

Rich coming out from you who Declare men not in agreement with YOU are WRONG …and YOU who follow anti-God Catholic traditions…

Jesus said, “I am THE Truth, the Way and the Life . . .”

Not News!

He didn’t say, “I am YOUR truth or HIS Truth . . . ”

And quite Apparent His Truth IS Not your Truth.

YOU need to take some time off of this forum and get to know your Lord

You should take your own advice.

John is writing about people like YOU, who claim that they are “incapable “of sinning.

No that Verse was speaking about men claiming they HAVE no Sin…
It was not Speaking about men “Committing” Sin!

As noted, your ignorance of simple word meaning is astounding.

Humans are naturally Born HAVING Sin,
That is a Condition.
Humans COMMIT Sin.
That is an Action.


Have and Commit are two Different Things ma’am.

You are a sinner like everyone else in constant need of God’s grace.

So? Why is that relevant? No one claimed they are Not a Sinner.
Sinner is also a Condition that applies to humans.

What you Fail to Know IS Some individuals….
(Unlike You), have been Forgiven (by the Lord God) of their Sin Against the Lord God… AND can Sin no MORE Against the Lord God.

With your catholic roots and your hanging on to catholic teaching… I highly doubt you will ever come to the Spiritual Understanding God desires men to seek and HAVE.

 

[GracePeace]

You are a sinner like everyone else in constant need of God’s grace.

I don't like everything about Calvinism--and I know you're RC--but I really like how they hammer this point home : a SINGLE sin saw Adam die and be kicked out of the Garden, so that's how high the standard is, therefore, there is no way other than honoring Christ's sacrifice (as all mankind began to have to sacrifice to draw near to Him since that time--Christ being supreme sacrifice so valued before God that it atones for "not only our sins but those of the world" with a single giving of it).

 

[Marymog]

1. This is called "slander" : I don't conceive of "being led by the Spirit into all truth" as you do, so I have no problem at all believing and affirming that the Spirit is guiding many who disagree with me (including in the EO and RC churches, Calvinists and Arminians, Cessationists and Pentecostals, etc) into all truth.

2. I'm saying people like Taken or Joe aren't playing with a full deck of cards--Scriptures that debunk their heresies are never taken seriously, just handwaived away, and they're extremely emotional.
That's what I meant.
I also think others unwarrantedly (contrary to facts) stick to their theological guns, but I may see that as cowardice, pride, etc, not necessarily that "they aren't playing with a full deck of cards" (eg, if they're not screeching their insane ignorance, like Taken or Joe are).
Have I put a bunch of Catholics on ignore just bc they've disagreed with me? No. I don't think or say that everyone who disagrees with me is "not playing with a full deck of cards"--thank God's grace, I couldn't be that lazy or sloppy.

Clarification needed and I edited my original post: I intended to say NOT playing with a full deck of cards.

 

[pandaflower]

Just a note here.

Protestant members cannot debate the scriptures with Roman Catholics.

Most Catholics do not independently study their Vatican approved Bible.
Even though there is one. This is because their priest tells them they need it to be read to them so to properly understand it.

Thats why there will always be conflict.

 

[pandaflower]

The Bible is a Catholic Book

This is what Catholics are taught.

 

[pandaflower]

Why do Catholics Use a Different Bible

 

[Marymog]

Yeah, I don't need anyone to tell me 1+1=2, and there're many doctrines that are perceptible, and then there are hard ones for which i have looked to others for conclusions others have come to (including the EO and RC churches), and if I don't find them completely satisfactory, I discuss on the internet, as iron sharpens iron, i pray and fast and read. I don't dismiss Scripture that presents a problem with my view, I just admit something about my view must be wrong, and I keep plugging away, looking to have my view shaped by not one or two verses of Scripture but all of it.

The Bereans were praised as "more noble" because they DID NOT accept even the word of Apostle Paul, but daily searched the Scriptures, as the touchstone against which Paul's claims were to be tested, but maybe you think you're above even Paul, and that people oughtn't compare what you claim against God's Word, that we should swallow the food and ask no questions. No sir! I will not be bound by your arrogance! If you were consistent with the Spirit Who inspired Scripture, you would praise me just as the Bereans were praised, but, as it is, apparently, the spirit of your mind is not fully formed by the Spirit Who inspired Scripture--the spirit of your mind has been formed by claims that are not of God.

Hey GracePeace,

I think we can both agree on these first 3 points:

Christ started The Church.
As the head of The Church, He professed what the doctrine of The Church was/is.
After His resurrection the Apostles were the heads of The Church.

Here is where we may differ:

Jesus specifically gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and told him 'Whatever YOU bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven'. By reading all of the NT AND historical Christian writings it is very clear that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus rose into heaven.

In Matthew 18 when Jesus was teaching all the Apostles he also said to them, 'Whatever YOU bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven'. The context of that statement, which was to ALL the Apostles, was 1 brother sins against another brother so they go to The Church (church leaders) to decide who is right/wrong (who is the sinner and who isn't the sinner). If they don't agree with the teachings/doctrines/decision of The Church, they are kicked out of The Church. If they repent, they are allowed back into The Church.

The Apostles put their binding/loosening authority into practice at The Council of Jersleum when they decided what doctrine ALL Christians will adhere to. At the council James even pointed out how Peter was right by reaffirming that what Peter said agrees with the words of the prophets.

Those biblical FACTS (along with others that I haven't mentioned) show that your practice of 'looking to others for conclusions' and if YOU don't find them completely satisfactory' you then discuss it with others on the internet until you are satisfied is an anti-biblical practice. What you are saying is that YOU decide what truthful bible-based doctrine is. No where at no point does Scripture ever say that YOU have that authority. Scripture specifically warns us against what you are doing because men tend to twist Scripture. Scripture makes it VERY clear that The Church has the authority to tell us what doctrine is.

In regard to your Berean theory here is......as Paul Harvey would say....... the rest of the story: After the Bereans searched Scripture (what we now call the OT) they determined that Paul was telling them the truth about the promised Messiah of the OT being fulfilled in Jesus. The Bereans didn't say to Paul, 'Thanks Paul, we got it from here. We are going to start our own church with our own doctrine'. Those Bereans joined The Church and were under the authority of The Church and subject to all of its decisions (like the one at the Council of Jerusalem). If a Berean Christian did not adhere to the decisions of The Church, they were kicked out of The Church.....Just like Scripture says.

Keeping it real with FACTS and Scripture to back it up.....Mary

 

[Marymog]

The Bible is a Catholic Book

This is what Catholics are taught.

Yup....we are taught the truth. And all those that watch that video learn the truth.

God bless....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Just a note here.

Protestant members cannot debate the scriptures with Roman Catholics.

Most Catholics do not independently study their Vatican approved Bible.
Even though there is one. This is because their priest tells them they need it to be read to them so to properly understand it.

Thats why there will always be conflict.

Hey pandaflower...........What is the Vatican approved bible?

If a Catholic goes to church every Sunday, they hear readings from 3 different books of the NT which means they hear 156 different readings from Scripture by the end of the year. And as we know, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I have been to many Protestant services over the years and ALL of the pastors read a few verses from one book of the bible and then explain those verses to the congregates. Sooooo, in my experience, Protesants hear FEWER verses from Scripture in a year than Protestants hear. But I appreciate your opinion.

Fact: Most Protestants AND Catholics don't study the bible on their own.

Is there a "Protestant approved bible"?

I have been to many Protestant services over the last 40 years and the pastors at all of those Protestant services read passages from Scripture to the congregates while standing on the stage after all the fake smoke and flashing strobe lights, lasers, electric guitars, drums and bongos being drummed telling the congregates how to "properly understand" Scripture. Sooooo the only difference between the Protestant church and Catholic church Sunday worship was the rock stage for the Protestant and a alter (the Lords table) for the Catholic. I do recall Scripture talking about Christians gathering at the Lords table. I don't recall Scripture talking about gathering at a stage for with fog, lasers, guitars and drums.........Hmmmmm! I must have missed that passage!

Sooooooo what's your point?

Curious Mary

 

[pandaflower]

Hey pandaflower...........What is the Vatican approved bible?

If a Catholic goes to church every Sunday, they hear readings from 3 different books of the NT which means they hear 156 different readings from Scripture by the end of the year. And as we know, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I have been to many Protestant services over the years and ALL of the pastors read a few verses from one book of the bible and then explain those verses to the congregates. Sooooo, in my experience, Protesants hear FEWER verses from Scripture in a year than Protestants hear. But I appreciate your opinion.

Fact: Most Protestants AND Catholics don't study the bible on their own.

Is there a "Protestant approved bible"?

I have been to many Protestant services over the last 40 years and the pastors at all of those Protestant services read passages from Scripture to the congregates while standing on the stage after all the fake smoke and flashing strobe lights, lasers, electric guitars, drums and bongos being drummed telling the congregates how to "properly understand" Scripture. Sooooo the only difference between the Protestant church and Catholic church Sunday worship was the rock stage for the Protestant and a alter (the Lords table) for the Catholic. I do recall Scripture talking about Christians gathering at the Lords table. I don't recall Scripture talking about gathering at a stage for with fog, lasers, guitars and drums.........Hmmmmm! I must have missed that passage!

Sooooooo what's your point?

Curious Mary

It's curious that you don't know the Catholic church approves the bibles used by its congregants.

NRSV: Catholic Edition - Catholic Bible Press

The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church.

www.catholicbiblepress.com

 

[GracePeace]

Hey GracePeace,

I think we can both agree on these first 3 points:

Christ started The Church.
As the head of The Church, He professed what the doctrine of The Church was/is.
After His resurrection the Apostles were the heads of The Church.

Here is where we may differ:

Jesus specifically gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and told him 'Whatever YOU bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven'. By reading all of the NT AND historical Christian writings it is very clear that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus rose into heaven.

In Matthew 18 when Jesus was teaching all the Apostles he also said to them, 'Whatever YOU bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven'. The context of that statement, which was to ALL the Apostles, was 1 brother sins against another brother so they go to The Church (church leaders) to decide who is right/wrong (who is the sinner and who isn't the sinner). If they don't agree with the teachings/doctrines/decision of The Church, they are kicked out of The Church. If they repent, they are allowed back into The Church.

I agree Peter is the Rock the Church is built on, and how the Apostles decide--an example of this is when Paul, who says he is present with them in spirit when they gather together, has passed judgment on the brother, and has delivered him over to satan for the destruction of his flesh.

The Apostles put their binding/loosening authority into practice at The Council of Jersleum when they decided what doctrine ALL Christians will adhere to. At the council James even pointed out how Peter was right by reaffirming that what Peter said agrees with the words of the prophets.

Those biblical FACTS (along with others that I haven't mentioned) show that your practice of 'looking to others for conclusions' and if YOU don't find them completely satisfactory' you then discuss it with others on the internet until you are satisfied is an anti-biblical practice. What you are saying is that YOU decide what truthful bible-based doctrine is. No where at no point does Scripture ever say that YOU have that authority. Scripture specifically warns us against what you are doing because men tend to twist Scripture. Scripture makes it VERY clear that The Church has the authority to tell us what doctrine is.

Oops, it was Paul who confronted Peter to his face that gave those words to Peter. Peter, in Acts, literally copies what Paul told him in Galatians 2. Who is Paul to study the Bible on his own and reject what ever Peter said? LOL And why does Peter submit to Paul?

Also, Peter taught error, unbeknownst to him--eg, that the dietary rules of the Law were to be kept, and that only Jews could be saved--so, even granting your "succession" from Peter assertion, just as Peter, you may be teaching error, unbeknownst to you, and someone else may know better.

Again, though, so that we don't lose the forest for the trees, the issue at hand is that you are impotent to defend your views using reason, so you resort to "my Church says so", which I reject, yet here you are pretending to respect logic, when, at the end of the day, you really ought to just say "my Church says so", because your argument doesn't go any further than that, since any logic that debunks your ignorance is just met with "my Church says so". You do not respect logic, and are not logical. You do not think, so quit pretending to be a thinker.

In regard to your Berean theory here is......as Paul Harvey would say....... the rest of the story: After the Bereans searched Scripture (what we now call the OT) they determined that Paul was telling them the truth about the promised Messiah of the OT being fulfilled in Jesus. The Bereans didn't say to Paul, 'Thanks Paul, we got it from here. We are going to start our own church with our own doctrine'. Those Bereans joined The Church and were under the authority of The Church and subject to all of its decisions (like the one at the Council of Jerusalem). If a Berean Christian did not adhere to the decisions of The Church, they were kicked out of The Church.....Just like Scripture says.

Keeping it real with FACTS and Scripture to back it up.....Mary

Yeah, let's pretend I'm outside of your club--since I'm searching the Scriptures, and finding your errors (eg, Irenaeus teaching Mary is the New Eve), that means I'm not joining your club. You should praise me, but you don't, but it's only because I reach a different conclusion. not because you can actually defend your position, because, again, you don't respect or resort to logic, you uncritically resort to "my Church says so".

 

[GracePeace]

Clarification needed and I edited my original post: I intended to say NOT playing with a full deck of cards.

I thought I treated what you'd said as "not playing with a full deck of cards".

 

[pandaflower]

Jesus is the rock . The Church of Jesus is built on Jesus,not Peter.
Peter,Petrus, an idiom of sorts to communicate to the apostle the eternal foundation of the church of the Christ Jesus,who is the cornerstone.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Samuel 2:2
“There is none holy like the Lord: for there is none besides you; there is no rock like our God."

Deuteronomy 32:4
" The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he."

 

[Marymog]

It's curious that you don't know the Catholic church approves the bibles used by its congregants.

NRSV: Catholic Edition - Catholic Bible Press

The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church.

www.catholicbiblepress.com

Hey panda,

I do know....but clearly you don't. The Church doesn't approve of just 1 translation of the Bible. But to get closest to the answer, let's go to the source: The New American Bible

If you clicked on the link, you would see that on the Vatican's website they use the New American Bible.

And here is Code of Canon Law: Code of Canon Law - Book III - The teaching function of the Church (Cann. 822-833)

Now tell me: After reading the Code, which translation is approved?

Happy to educate Christians about The Church........Mary

 

[Marymog]

I thought I treated what you'd said as "not playing with a full deck of cards".

I felt you did; however, I made a mistake in what I was intending to say and wanted to correct (edit) it, therefor I wanted you to know that I was editing it since you quoted it.

Mary

 

[pandaflower]

Hey panda,

I do know....but clearly you don't. The Church doesn't approve of just 1 translation of the Bible. But to get closest to the answer, let's go to the source: The New American Bible

If you clicked on the link, you would see that on the Vatican's website they use the New American Bible.

And here is Code of Canon Law: Code of Canon Law - Book III - The teaching function of the Church (Cann. 822-833)

Now tell me: After reading the Code, which translation is approved?

Hayoppy to educate Christians about The Church........Mary

I would suggest you should have read the link I provided.
In that link different Bible versions are spoken of as church approved.

That your church thinks it has the authority to approve what bibles its members should read should give one pause.
However, I find those living under a dictatorship rarely question why.

 

[Marymog]

Oops, it was Paul who confronted Peter to his face that gave those words to Peter. Peter, in Acts, literally copies what Paul told him in Galatians 2. Who is Paul to study the Bible on his own and reject what ever Peter said? LOL And why does Peter submit to Paul?

Also, Peter taught error, unbeknownst to him--eg, that the dietary rules of the Law were to be kept, and that only Jews could be saved--so, even granting your "succession" from Peter assertion, just as Peter, you may be teaching error, unbeknownst to you, and someone else may know better.

Hey GP,

You have a good grasp of what is in Scripture, you just don't have a good grasp of the full context of Scripture in this scenario you brought up. I suppose it's not entirely your fault. You are repeating what your Protestant men have taught you. Or maybe, just maybe, this is one of those times you are 'looking to others for conclusions others have come to' and if you don't find them completely satisfactory you discuss it on the internet'? If the latter is true, I am happy to oblige.

Yup, Paul confronted Peter and revealed him to be a hypocrite. Peter wasn't practicing what he preached. Peter wasn't adhering to the teachings of The Church. Your interpretation (or what your men have taught you) of those passages suggest that Peter was being submissive to Paul. The true interpretation of those passages is that Peter wasn't being submissive to the teachings of The Church, so Paul called him out on it.

In regard to your "Peter taught error" quip I say this so that you better understand Scripture: Scripture never says that Peter, or any man, is infallible. Scripture does say that individual men who read Scripture twist Scripture. Scripture also says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and if we don't adhere to the teachings/decisions of The Church we are to be kicked out of the Church (Matthew 18). So, it doesn't matter that "Peter taught error". He got corrected and The Church taught/teaches the truth. As long as one who speaks repeats the teachings of The Church, they can't be teaching error.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I would suggest you should have read the link I provided.
In that link different Bible versions are spoken of as church approved.

That your church thinks it has the authority to approve what bibles its members should read should give one pause.
However, I find those living under a dictatorship rarely question why.

Lol....I did read the link you provided, and I did not see one word in the article saying anything about there being "different Bible versions are spoken of as church approved." Please cut and paste from the article where it says what you allege; I can't find it.

Your original post suggests, to me, that The Church approves the NRSV only. Is that not what you were suggesting?

Soooo your belief/theory is that everyone who has ever translated the bible in the last 2,000 years all of those translations were reliable with no errors? No one has the authority to call out errors in them? Is that what you are suggesting?

I went to Biblegateway and they have approximately 50 different bible translations to choose from. Do you approve of all 50 translations?

Curious Mary

 

[pandaflower]

Lol....I did read the link you provided, and I did not see one word in the article saying anything about there being "different Bible versions are spoken of as church approved." Please cut and paste from the article where it says what you allege; I can't find it.

Your original post suggests, to me, that The Church approves the NRSV only. Is that not what you were suggesting?

Soooo your belief/theory is that everyone who has ever translated the bible in the last 2,000 years all of those translations were reliable with no errors? No one has the authority to call out errors in them? Is that what you are suggesting?

I went to Biblegateway and they have approximately 50 different bible translations to choose from. Do you approve of all 50 translations?

Curious Mary

NRSV: Catholic Edition - Catholic Bible Press

The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church.

www.catholicbiblepress.com