Is Being Catholic And Being Born-Again The Same Thing ?

[FHII]

Thus, the grievious wolves that the Apostles talked about. Ain't the Bible wonderful?

 

[Vashti]

The biblical scripture you quote here is speaking of man's tradition. St. Paul speaks of another tradition, which he told us to hold fast on. It is a tradition that comes from the Holy Spirit. The two are not the same. And how do you know the traditions that St. Paul handed down orally by word of mouth when all you have is sola scriptura (the Bible alone).

2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

" whether by word, or our epistle" - does not necessarily mean a two separate issues. It is about the same traditions, transmitted orally, or in the list.
Imaginary made-up story about some extra-biblical traditions transmitted orally are not nothing more than imaginary bujdami based on a abundant imagination. But it speaks of false prophets who will secretly bring in destructive heresies:

2Pe 2:1-3 esv "(1) But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2) And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. (3) And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep."

The Lord Jesus told recognize them by their fruits. I think that hiding pedophile scandals, or inquisitorial stacks are these fruits, as well as contrary to the Bible false tales - This is from where do you get your knowledge of imaginary extra-biblical tradition.

There are many things not mentioned in the Bible...

And there are many things mentioned in the Bible which Catholics pervert.

The "assumption of Mary" was a tradition that was orally handed down since the Apostolic times. We believe our traditions because it came from the Apostles. If the Apostles said that Mary was taken into Heaven by her Son Jesus, then we believe it. And yes, this is so much like Jesus who is the perfect son. What son would leave his mother behind? The commandment of God is "honor your mother and your father." Did you think that Jesus only honored His Father, and not His mother?

and you can believe in Santa Claus, you have the same basics.

Łk 8:19-21 esv "(19) Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. (20) And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." (21) But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.""

Here Lord had a great opportunity to honor his mother and everyone would see what she is unique. But he did not use.

Scripture clearly says that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, but the Catholic tradition has a whole hordes of mediators.

At the Passover supper, Jesus DID hold out the bread and said, "This is my body." While it is true that Jesus also said that He is the vine and even the gate, the difference here is that none of His disciples left when He said he was the vine or the gate. However, when Jesus stated that He is the bread and they must eat Him, all His disciples left Him except 12 because they understood that He was speaking to them LITERALLY this time (Read John 6).

What are you resisting the idea, that disciples understood that He was speaking to them literally or that they do understand at all? if they understood anything, they would not escape. And good that you reminding about this passage:


J 6:60-68 esv "(60) When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (61) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? (62) Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (63) It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (64) But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) (65) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (66) After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. (67) So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" (68) Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,"

as you can see Lord clearly explained that the words which he said are spirit and life.

 

[Vashti]

Hi Vashti!
I do not understand your question [lost in translation]
The OP:


my quote:


Matthew 7:21-22 has nothing to do with what I have said...this verse is about believers who have decided to do things without inquiring of, or the approval of the Lord... God's will and the leading of the Holy Spirit was not in it. That is why I am strongly against Dominionism and NAR teachings. If you think that it is not possible to move this way...Romans 11:29 says "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
and one day we will give an account of ourselves before God regarding these things...Romans 14:12, Hebrews 4:13

Shalom!!!

I think that you understand the question. I do not know what it is Dominionism and NAR teachings. I wrote to myself and did not present any teaching.
You claim that Matthew said, and with it enough - which is not true .... and I quoted another verse from Matthew ... if you believe that the whole Scripture is inspired, you should respect the other verses. But if I misunderstood, sorry.

 

[Angelina]

Again...what in tarnation are you talking about???

You claim that Matthew said, and with it enough - which is not true

can someone please reinterpret this into NZ English for me...thanks! :huh:

Blessings!!!

 

[Vashti]

Maybe I'll try again. You wrote:

"Whether you call yourself a Catholic or a Protestant, a Christian or Pagan, a Jew or a Greek. If you have accepted Jesus as Lord of your life by faith and believe that he is the Son of God, he rose again and sits on the right-hand of God forever interceding for us...you are saved". I was trying to tell you that Matthew also wrote about repentance, conversion, about sin, hard way etc. In this sense, that you can not be a a pagan and be saved. But I do not speak about crucified robbers...

I see that my English makes irritations. I'm sorry. I realize I am doing a lot of mistakes. I guess I should stop writing. I'll break.

 

[Selene]

What are you resisting the idea, that disciples understood that He was speaking to them literally or that they do understand at all? if they understood anything, they would not escape. And good that you reminding about this passage:


J 6:60-68 esv "(60) When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (61) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? (62) Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (63) It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (64) But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) (65) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (66) After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. (67) So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" (68) Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,"

as you can see Lord clearly explained that the words which he said are spirit and life.

And here lies the problem. Since when has the "spirit" ever been used to mean something "symbolic"? For Catholics, we NEVER interpret Jesus' use of the word "spirit" as something symbolic.....but something REAL Do you also believe that God's kingdom is symbolic and not real because His kingdom is spiritual and not of this world?

 

[Templar81]

Very well said.

In the Niceane Creed we say all thing sseen and unseen.
Thiose thigns unseen are spiritual, but they are no less real than what we can see in the world now. Heaven adn Hell are real, make no mistake they they if anyting are even more real than what we can see.

 

[Angelina]

"Whether you call yourself a Catholic or a Protestant, a Christian or Pagan, a Jew or a Greek. If you have accepted Jesus as Lord of your life by faith and believe that he is the Son of God, he rose again and sits on the right-hand of God forever interceding for us...you are saved". I was trying to tell you that Matthew also wrote about repentance, conversion, about sin, hard way etc. In this sense, that you can not be a a pagan and be saved. But I do not speak about crucified robbers...

Wow! we weren't even on the same planet with that one... ^_^ Thanks for clarifying what you were meaning Vashti, much appreciated! I was generalizing on the basics of salvation eg: if I were a Pagan or a Jew or Greek etc and God touched my life some way...I would be saved if I accepted Jesus as Lord...yadda yadda yadda...that was all.

Shalom!!!

 

[aspen]

Oral tradition has played a big role in the transmission of God's Word. The OT was oral tradition for centuries before it was finally written down in 500 BC during the Babylonian captivity. The gospels in the NT were communicated orally for 30-40 years before they were written down. Finally, the canon of the NT was not decided upon for over 300 years......

During these periods of time, the Church was responsible for carry down these traditions. There is no getting around this fact, Vashti.

Is there any verse in the Bible that exalts the written word over the oral word?

 

[Vashti]

Very well said.

In the Niceane Creed we say all thing sseen and unseen.
Thiose thigns unseen are spiritual, but they are no less real than what we can see in the world now. Heaven adn Hell are real, make no mistake they they if anyting are even more real than what we can see.

One of the principles of sophistry (unfair argument) is the assignment of opponent absurdities, which he did not speak. Question - where and who spoke about the symbolic Heaven, etc.?
Precisely this logic leads to the conclusion that the branch not only in a symbolic sense, but Selene is actually a branch - but it is not my logic, only her.

Oral tradition has played a big role in the transmission of God's Word. The OT was oral tradition for centuries before it was finally written down in 500 BC during the Babylonian captivity. The gospels in the NT were communicated orally for 30-40 years before they were written down. Finally, the canon of the NT was not decided upon for over 300 years......

During these periods of time, the Church was responsible for carry down these traditions. There is no getting around this fact, Vashti.

Is there any verse in the Bible that exalts the written word over the oral word?

and I repeat, the oral tradition, even if it existed, not be contrary to the Scriptures.. The truth is, the Scripture cannot be broken, the Lord said it:

J 10:35 esv "(35) If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--"

I read about the written word that "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" (Mt 5:18 ), but the tradition can be broken and will be, because Scripture warns about this:

2Pe 2:1 esv "(1) But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Mk 7:9 esv"(9) And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!"

be aware of this verse:

Ga 3:10 esv "(10) For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."" -

because he says nothing about the word transmitted orally, only about the word written..

And what examining daily the brothers from Berea to see if these things were so - tradition or Scripture?

Dz 17:11 esv "(11) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

I definitely prefer the Scriptures than suggested by your tradition, transmitted by organizations familiar with the inquisition murder and hiding pedophiles. "Cursed is the man who trusts in man" - thus says the LORD ( Jer 17:5 ), anyway if you think that nothing wrong with trust in man, it's your business, but:

2J 1:9 esv "(9) Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son."

and:

Jud 1:3 esv "(3) Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

 

[Vashti]

There are many things not mentioned in the Bible, such as George Washington, but you still believe that he was the first president of the United States.

and from this knowledge depends your salvation, if you expect that it was in the Scriptures? :wacko:

 

[aspen]

One of the principles of sophistry (unfair argument) is the assignment of opponent absurdities, which he did not speak. Question - where and who spoke about the symbolic Heaven, etc.?
Precisely this logic leads to the conclusion that the branch not only in a symbolic sense, but Selene is actually a branch - but it is not my logic, only her.


and I repeat, the oral tradition, even if it existed, not be contrary to the Scriptures.. The truth is, the Scripture cannot be broken, the Lord said it:

J 10:35 esv "(35) If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--"

I read about the written word that "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" (Mt 5:18 ), but the tradition can be broken and will be, because Scripture warns about this:

Actually, people change scripture all the time! Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are just two recent examples. Sacred Tradition is the guardian of Sacred Scripture - without Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture is open to private interpretation.

2Pe 2:1 esv "(1) But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Yep. Here are some examples:

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem." Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Christ only (no Jesus)​

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body." This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Jesus
> Jesus Christ
Christ​

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Jesus > Christ​

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Jesus......
Christ......​

Apollinarianism: Named for Apollinaris of Laodicea (fl. 350), this heresy says that Jesus Christ was not a real man, but not totally divine either. Apollinarians suggested that he had a human body and a human soul, but his mind was taken over by the eternal Logos.

Je(Christ)sus​

Arianism: Arianism is named after Arius (c. 250 - c. 336), a priest in Alexandria. This is considered the most serious heresy. Jesus Christ was thought of as a special creation by God for man's salvation. Arianism was the form of Christianity that the Goths adhered to, and it was popular in all the areas they conquered, including Italy, Spain, and Africa.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.

Jesus only (no Christ)​

Other Heresies

Not all heresies focussed on the issues of the trinity and Christ's nature. Here are the leading examples.

Donatism: Named for its leader, the theologian Donatus the Great (d. 355), Donatism included a group of extremist sects, mostly in North Africa, that emphasized asceticism. They valued martyrdom, found lapses of faith (even under torture or threat of death) inexcusable, and believed that the sacraments required a pure priest to be effective.

Pelagianism: Another group of sects, centered in Gaul, Britain, and Ireland, is associated with the Irish monk Pelagius (fl. 410). He believed that original sin was not transmitted from Adam and Eve to their children (and thereby to us). Baptism was not considered necessary, and people could be "saved" by their own efforts, that is, they did not necessarily require the grace of God. Many modern liberal Christians agee with Pelagius.

Gnosticism: Discussed in my article on Roman philosophy and religion, the Christian versions were, obviously, considered serious heresies. Gnosticism has never entirely disappeared, and can be seen in the traditions of Alchemy and Astrology, and even in modern times in the works of Carl Jung.

Manicheanism: Also discussed in that article, Manicheanism is actually a separate religion which blends Christianity with Gnosticism, Mithraism, neo-Platonism, and even Buddhism. Again, it was considered a very serious heresy. It survived well into the Middle Ages, where it strongly influenced the Bogomils in the Balkans and the Cathars in southern France.

The Bulgarian Heresy: This heresy is worth a few extra paragraphs!


Mk 7:9 esv"(9) And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

Which included the distortion of oral and written tradition! Jesus was taking about a complete corruption of God's commandments.


be aware of this verse:

Ga 3:10 esv "(10) For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."" -

Interesting. You know that when Paul was writing this Letter to the Galatians, the gospels, Acts, and Revelation were not written yet? So was Paul telling the Galatians to reject the oral Traditions they were hearing about Jesus?


because he says nothing about the word transmitted orally, only about the word written..

And what examining daily the brothers from Berea to see if these things were so - tradition or Scripture?

Dz 17:11 esv "(11) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

​False dichotomy. They received the word will all eagerness AND examined the scriptures daily. They received both and made sure they did not contradict each other.

I definitely prefer the Scriptures than suggested by your tradition, transmitted by organizations familiar with the inquisition murder and hiding pedophiles. "Cursed is the man who trusts in man" - thus says the LORD ( Jer 17:5 ), anyway if you think that nothing wrong with trust in man, it's your business, but:

All humanity is sinful. What makes you think that you are more qualified to interpret the scriptures then the Church Jesus started?

I do not believe ancient oral Tradition is contrary to scripture either, but there really is no way to test it - you have to take it on faith. Once again, the written word is just as susceptible to corruption as the oral word. Paul viewed the Church and scripture as an authority.

and from this knowledge depends your salvation, if you expect that it was in the Scriptures? :wacko:

Now you are guilty of Sophistry.

 

[Vashti]

Aspen,

1. Please form your statements so that they did not looked like that I wrote something that I did not write.

2. You do not speak the truth.
I am not guilty of sophistry, because I did not invent nonsense of the Presidents of the topic of Scripture.
This is guilty of sophistry, who tries to prove the unscriptural nonsense using the arguments of the Presidents. This way you can prove anything, everything and this is just sophistry, not a natural question is why the Scriptures meant about the Presidents.

 

[aspen]

Aspen,

1. Please form your statements so that they did not looked like that I wrote something that I did not write.

2. You do not speak the truth.
I am not guilty of sophistry, because I did not invent nonsense of the Presidents of the topic of Scripture.
This is guilty of sophistry, who tries to prove the unscriptural nonsense using the arguments of the Presidents. This way you can prove anything, everything and this is just sophistry, not a natural question is why the Scriptures meant about the Presidents.

Vashti

1. My comments are clearly written in blue font.

2. Selene was making a good point; the Bible does not contain all the facts in the world. Instead of acknowledging her point, you belittled it.

 

[Vashti]

The Bible does not necessarily contain all the facts in the world ...

 

[aspen]

If you are interested in having a thorough, respectful discussion about Catholicism my email is [email protected]. I am going to drop out of the Catholic/Christian discussion on this thread.

 

[Vashti]

Actually, people change scripture all the time! Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are just two recent examples.

You have forgotten to add the Catolics.

Sacred Tradition is the guardian of Sacred Scripture - without Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture is open to private interpretation.

God keeps his word and not the people with his tradition. If Scripture depended on Catholics - woe to the world.

The Spirit of truth guide you into all the truth (J 16:13 ) and not the traditions.

If you are interested in having a thorough, respectful discussion about Catholicism my email is [email protected]. I am going to drop out of the Catholic/Christian discussion on this thread.

I have no doubt about Catholicyzm. Thanks.

 

[Selene]

and from this knowledge depends your salvation, if you expect that it was in the Scriptures? :wacko:

I noticed you did not even have anything to say about my last post when I refuted your arguement. Instead you avoid it because you now see your error.. "Spirit" has never been used to mean anything symbolic......and that is where you made your error.

 

[Selene]

One of the principles of sophistry (unfair argument) is the assignment of opponent absurdities, which he did not speak. Question - where and who spoke about the symbolic Heaven, etc.?
Precisely this logic leads to the conclusion that the branch not only in a symbolic sense, but Selene is actually a branch - but it is not my logic, only her.


and I repeat, the oral tradition, even if it existed, not be contrary to the Scriptures.. The truth is, the Scripture cannot be broken, the Lord said it:

Everything that Jesus says is true. Why? Because He is the Truth, the Way, and the LIfe. He is the TRUTH. So, even His parables are true simply because they have meaning. But that is something you can't understand because you think the spirit is only symbolic, not real.

Our oral traditions does not contradict Scripture. Just because Scripture does not mention it does not mean we are contradicting it. Scripture doesn't say that we should brush our teeth everyday; yet you brush your teeth. Scripture does not say anything about the assumption of Mary; therefore, we are not contradicting the Bible. That's the whole point.

 

[Episkopos]

If the bible cannot support what the church is teaching, perhaps we should question the validity of such a church. What church says...don't look at your bible but listen to us!!!"