Bible alone

[Wrangler]

husband and wife are equal too but have very different roles

The husband has authority over the wife per Scripture. The RCC denomination has no scriptural authority.

 

[theefaith]

There are 3 types of Catholics and 2 deserves sympathy. I used to be a casual catholic.

1. Cultural Catholic (attend wedding's & funerals, maybe major holidays) - sympathize
2. Casual Catholic (attend regularly but don't put it on others) - sympathize
3. Proselyting Catholics (know RCC usurps Christ's authority but pushes in on people anyway) - anti-Christ

to say the church usurpes Christ’s authority is ridiculous
Christ alone is God!
Christ alone is savior!
Christ alone is Lord!

His work of redemption (teaching & baptizing) must continue thru the whole world and thru all ages, He ascended to heaven, He does not accomplish this directly, so how except thru His apostles and His church is it going to be done!

Undeniable scripture!

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20 acts 2:42 1 Tim 3:15

 

[theefaith]

The husband has authority over the wife per Scripture. The RCC denomination has no scriptural authority.

yes as head of the family
But they are equal persons
Male and female He created them

 

[theefaith]

Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Key verse

Ephesians 5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ,

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in thehouse of God, which is the church of theliving God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Hebrews 2:12
Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There are 3 types of Catholics and 2 deserves sympathy. I used to be a casual catholic.

1. Cultural Catholic (attend wedding's & funerals, maybe major holidays) - sympathize
2. Casual Catholic (attend regularly but don't put it on others) - sympathize
3. Proselyting Catholics (know RCC usurps Christ's authority but pushes in on people anyway) - anti-Christ

I just read a paper in which the author was making a distinction between two classes of evil people. There are sinners who don't believe the gospel and believe that Christians are nothing more ignorant hicks. There are other types of sinners that are actively and aggressively hostile to God, seeking out believers in order to do them harm. I fear we are living during a time when the second category is on the rise.

 

[CadyandZoe]

her as in mother?
Holy mother church gal 4:26

then tell me what is, remember it must be founded by Christ Matt 16:18 the one fold Jn 10:16 universal Jn 1:29 Jn 3:16
And apostolic eph 2:20

there is only one option brother

You know what I mean don't you?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. not some silly woman
God never established hierarchical authority in women

Silly women? What is the source of your attitude brother?

 

[Randy Kluth]

1. You said you didn't even know what that was.
2. I said if it is apparent they live they lives by something, like when Paul says authoritatively that the Rock followed the children of Israel, I want to do likewise and obtain any blessing I can from those sources they live by and cite.

All the readers know the point I'm making even if you want to pretend you don't.
You start with falsehoods, so continue in falsehoods--falsehood upon falsehood!

1. Again and again, I cannot accept the idea that Jude citing a Prophet of God is nothing notable, and isn't a seal of approval--that I should hold it as being nothing more than something like Paul becoming like a pagan to win pagans (citing pagans to pagans). I know better than that. You do as well. Your allegiance to Mariolators is the only thing preventing you from admitting it.
2. If I find the writers lived by writings not included in the anthology (the Bible), yeah, it's well within reason to do some investigation into the matter and to follow their example and live by them too (if everything checks out). Apparently the Ethiopians did it. No reason to reject that blessing--I'm not bound to Mariolators' decisions!

Yeah, as I'd already said, that is a possibility--one way of testing that speculative belief would be to cross-reference citations from reputable sources. Really, we'd have to ascertain where Jude got this prophecy from.
You're fine with the idea that a NT writer was inspired by God to mislead people to read and trust in a false Book. All right, I guess (?).
As far as it having not been "canonized" by Jews, that's not my problem--you're the one who believes the NT to be perfect and exhaustive, but your perfect and exhaustive Scriptures are citing Enoch, so you have that problem to reconcile with your beliefs not me with mine. When I see Jude citing it that's enough for me--one Jew in that position is enough.

Well, before you said you didn't care if it did come from the Book of Enoch, but now you're saying you think the Book of Enoch was a result of divination? You think the Bible leads its readers to trust in a publication authored by divination? Yeah, that's a dangerous belief--and, what do you know, it is blind faith in Mariolators which is at the base of it (is the reason you are having to resort to it--it's the only way to hold the nonsensical tradition together). Solution : drop the Mariolators.

And you enjoy yours--ie, "Mariolators told me so--I don't question them."

I have no interest in perpetuating an ad hominem-laced discussion. And I have no inherent hostility to the one with whom I'm having this discussion. I just wish to set the record straight, because some untruths are being told about me.

1) I do not hold to "Mariolatry" in any way whatsoever. That is slander.

2) I do not believe the Scriptures are "set in stone," but am happy with the set we have. The development of canon was not a predictable "rollout," and took place through careful consideration.

3) I do not believe Jude specifically cited the book of Enoch, but only a known quotation from Enoch, which could have been recorded in other sources--not just the book of Enoch. Jude was sanctioning a single quotation that can be read in 1 Enoch. This does not prove or disprove that Jude was citing the book of Enoch. He was focusing attention not on any source or book providing the quotation, but only on the quotation of Enoch itself.

4) I don't fully understand what "Baptism for the Dead" was in ancient times. But I do understand the commonly-held notion that it was a non-Christian ritual that Paul used to show the general belief that people survive death. It was not a practice that Paul was recommending to Christians--he was only trying to prove there was a common belief in the afterlife. Citing a non-Christian practice does not constitute recognition, by Paul, of the practice a something Christians should do. Neither should reference to a quote from Enoch be misconstrued as acceptance of any non-Christian book that quotes that source.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The nature of the church is authority in hierarchy producing order!

I know. This is the first true thing you have said. This has always been the nature of the Catholic church. It's all about control and power. Why? Fear of men rather than fear of God.

No belief authority in persons?
Really!

That's what I said. Consider the following verses.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!​

Take note of the fact that Paul includes himself in his warning. In Paul's view, the gospel has primacy even over the messenger, even over himself. Paul is NOT the authority, the gospel itself is the authority. The gospel Paul preached is preeminent and more important than Paul himself, according to his own words.

Luke 19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” 40 But Jesus answered, “I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” ​

God can make stones give his message. The stones are not preeminent. The message is preeminent.

 

[theefaith]

There are 3 types of Catholics and 2 deserves sympathy. I used to be a casual catholic.

1. Cultural Catholic (attend wedding's & funerals, maybe major holidays) - sympathize
2. Casual Catholic (attend regularly but don't put it on others) - sympathize
3. Proselyting Catholics (know RCC usurps Christ's authority but pushes in on people anyway) - anti-Christ

The holy church does not usurp Christ’s authority, the holy church establishes it throughout the whole world, and thru all time!

The holy apostles do not usurp Christ’s kingdom, the apostles administer the kingdom for Christ who ascended to heaven!

Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Ephesians 5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ...


What authority does Christ have?
What power does Christ have?
What mission / ministry does Christ have?

Peter, the apostles and their successors have the same authority, power, and mission! Jn 20:21 as my father sent me, even so send I you!

 

[CadyandZoe]

acts 8 the eunuch had scripture but the spirit send an apostle to instruct him.

Sure, the Spirit sent Philipp to explain Isaiah to him. Surely you aren't saying this story became the raison d'etre for the Catholic Church? That's a huge stretch.

how does he know about baptism?

Baptism wasn't new. It was a common practice around the world. Everyone knew about it.

Scripture alone can’t save, the church and apostles are necessary

Since you aren't a Christian, I can understand why you might not be aware of the fact that Jesus Christ is our savior; not the scriptures; not the church; not the apostles. Or did you forget?

 

[CadyandZoe]

spiritual anarchy!
Spiritual blindness!
Spiritual fundamentalism!

Christ is high priest therefore there must be low priests of the same ministering order

Sorry, he is the final priest as Paul clearly teaches. They don't teach Hebrews in catechism?

 

[GracePeace]

I have no interest in perpetuating an ad hominem-laced discussion. And I have no inherent hostility to the one with whom I'm having this discussion. I just wish to set the record straight, because some untruths are being told about me.

1) I do not hold to "Mariolatry" in any way whatsoever. That is slander.

2) I do not believe the Scriptures are "set in stone," but am happy with the set we have. The development of canon was not a predictable "rollout," and took place through careful consideration.

3) I do not believe Jude specifically cited the book of Enoch, but only a known quotation from Enoch, which could have been recorded in other sources--not just the book of Enoch. Jude was sanctioning a single quotation that can be read in 1 Enoch. This does not prove or disprove that Jude was citing the book of Enoch. He was focusing attention not on any source or book providing the quotation, but only on the quotation of Enoch itself.

4) I don't fully understand what "Baptism for the Dead" was in ancient times. But I do understand the commonly-held notion that it was a non-Christian ritual that Paul used to show the general belief that people survive death. It was not a practice that Paul was recommending to Christians--he was only trying to prove there was a common belief in the afterlife. Citing a non-Christian practice does not constitute recognition, by Paul, of the practice a something Christians should do. Neither should reference to a quote from Enoch be misconstrued as acceptance of any non-Christian book that quotes that source.

It occurred to me : the roster of "the Bible" shifted quite a bit for quite a while. During any of those iterations, you'd be arguing "No, these are the Word of God--you can't change them!" and I'd be arguing "Well I think there're writings outside of these that are authoritative."
LOL History would be on my side--and you'd be arguing against your present self which defends the latest roster.

 

[Wrangler]

to say the church usurpes Christ’s authority is ridiculous
Christ alone is God!
Christ alone is savior!
Christ alone is Lord!

You forgot the biggie ... Christ alone is the head of man!

 

[Wrangler]

yes

Yes, period. Thank you. This is in stark contrast to the RCC denomination, which has no authority.

Yes, men and women equally share in the saving grace of Christ but only one has Scriptural authority over the other. Stop confusing the subject of authority with anything else.

 

[Wrangler]

The holy church does not usurp Christ’s authority

If the RCC would come to grips with reality on this one point, there would be a lot more harmony in Christendom. The holy church does usurp Christ’s authority and the Great Schism and Protestant Reformation are great reactions to that usurpation.

Compare and contrast how the Apostles handled the controversy of circumcision with how the RCC unilaterally added the filioque.

 

[APAK]

Yes, I've been gone. Just busy in an upside down world, moved, etc. Glad to see you still here speaking good sense!

Thanks....I hope your move was a success and keep me honest as you always do at at times....;)

 

[theefaith]

You know what I mean don't you?

no

 

[theefaith]

Silly women? What is the source of your attitude brother?

feminism and woman’s lib is from communism even in the communists manifesto

women don’t lead and must be kept to n their place

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

wrangler agrees I’m sure

 

[theefaith]

Sure, the Spirit sent Philipp to explain Isaiah to him. Surely you aren't saying this story became the raison d'etre for the Catholic Church? That's a huge stretch.

Baptism wasn't new. It was a common practice around the world. Everyone knew about it.

Since you aren't a Christian, I can understand why you might not be aware of the fact that Jesus Christ is our savior; not the scriptures; not the church; not the apostles. Or did you forget?

there is only one savior yes but the church is necessary for salvation

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

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


1 Pet 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us!
(Ark of Noah a type of the church, member of Christ and his church and salvation by baptism!)
(Outside the ark all died and outside the church there is no salvation!)
The holy church founded by Christ is the ark of salvation!