The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[Phoneman777]

well, that is YOUR interpretation. And the Church has her own. The church goes back 2000 years. You are not quite that old, I am sure.

Are you infallible?

Why do you trust your own human interpretation? esp since in Peter (1 or 2) it says not to go by private interpretation

No, we should not give Scripture a private interpretation, but one which is in harmony with the rest of Scripture.

Please offer an explanation as to why the other disciples bickered about who was going to be the "pope" (Luke 9:46 KJV) after they'd all heard Jesus speak in their ears of His intention to grant Peter the first "pontificate".

 

[Phoneman777]

Scalia, I think the answer you are looking for is that no human being is infallible.

Not me, certainly, or Stan, or Mj, or any other poster here...including you.

And not the pope, either.

Hey, B! We must remember that the pope DOES speak infallibly when he speaks "ex cathedra".

 

[Barrd]

Hey, B! We must remember that the pope DOES speak infallibly when he speaks "ex cathedra".

So, it doesn't matter if he's a womanizing, fornicating, sadist...

Somehow, I just don't see the Lord and Savior I know giving His authority to these guys.l

 

[Phoneman777]

So, it doesn't matter if he's a womanizing, fornicating, sadist...

Somehow, I just don't see the Lord and Savior I know giving His authority to these guys.l

I agree. "The church's one foundation, is Jesus Christ her Lord, she is His new creation by water and the Word!"

 

[tom55]

Hi, friend, if I may, a word on the origin of the Bible. A study of church history will reveal that the "capital" of Christianity was moved from Palestine to Rome in the 4th century when Christianity was legalized by Emperor Constantine. Very quickly, many men - who made sure to hide their "faith" from the authorities when so many of their brethren deemed it an honor to perish for the cause of Christ - began pushing their way to the forefront as these religious opportunists saw that could safely be done now that Christianity had legal status. They sought the favor of the secular power, which was all to happy to grant to these "Christian" leaders who were so anxious to compromise the purity of the Gospel for ecumenical unity with the pagans of the Empire. An "ecumenical Bible" was commissioned by Constantine for Eusebius, who was a follower of Origen - a straight up occultist and preacher of occult Christian doctrine - using available MSS of the day in that region. About 50 copies were made, were rejected by the early church, and went underground. Incidentally, Codex Sinaticus which was found in 1844 at Sinai to be the oldest MSS and forms the basis for every new Bible version out there today since the beginning of the 20th century, including the JW's NWT, NIV, NASB, TEV, NKJV, etc., is believed to be by many, many authoritative diplomatics none other than one of these 50 corrupt "ecumenical" Bibles of Constantine's day. This is why the new versions of today read so differently from Bibles based on the Textus Receptus Greek, such as the KJV.

Meanwhile, back in Palestine, the purity of the Gospels, the epistles, etc. was kept alive by devout men wholly unconcerned with whatever gain the world might afford them, but only with spreading the truth of Jesus' salvation and His Second Coming, for which we need to prepare. These men lived and worked in that region until Muslims overran Palestine and forced these men to retreat West. With their ancient MSS maintained in the purity of Christ's truth in hand, they settled in Europe and began disseminating for the first time in Europe the unmolested truth of God's Word, which quickly came into conflict with Rome's corrupt MSS. These conflicts eventually led to the Protestant Reformation and the re-establishment of God's true Word on the stage of history, never again to be hidden away from the masses, who were subject to the death penalty for reading or possessing copies of even Rome's corrupt Bible MSS.

Therefore, when speaking of who was responsible for compiling the Bible, it depends upon which Bible is in question: the Bible based on the corrupt MSS of the Western church in Rome or the one based on the purity of God's Word preserved by His own hand. An excellent documentary on YouTube to view more info about this subject is "A Lamp In The Dark: The Untold History of The Bible". Very comprehensive and very well substantiated with facts from history and diplomatics.

I took the time to watch A Lamp In The Dark. Please don't take this personal since what I am about to write is only my opinion of this "documentary" and that opinion is based on researching some of the claims they made in the "documentary". If you, or anyone who watched it, considers it an "excellent documentary" then they should sincerely re-evaluate their knowledge of Christian History and History in general. It was inaccurate, not completely truthful, a twisting of history and the truth with some flat out lies. It appeared to be written or designed to be an attack on our fellow Christian brothers and sisters (Catholics).

There is no legitimate scholar of History or Christian Hitstory that would recommend a person watch this "documentary".

 

[tom55]

With God all things are possible but in this case highly unlikely. What you fail to understand is that I was born and raised a Catholic and I know how long a lot of their teachings are. Once I actually started reading the Bible I understood that. It's not really that hard to see the erroneous dogmas of the RCC. Only those who are inculcated into it are the ones that won't read the word and see what it says.

It seems you are saying to me that you, StanJ, can read the bible and properly interpret it but anyone who is Catholic can not?

You are saying the Catholic Church's (which is made up of men) interpretation of scripture is erroneous/wrong but StanJ (who is a man) is not erroneous or wrong in his interpretation?

 

[tom55]

No I don't think God inspired them to replace Judas. I think they did it on their own but of course I'm not in their heads so I have no idea. Only God knows but as far as I'm concerned Jesus appointed the 12 apostles including Judas and I'm sure it was his intention to make Paul the replacement to Judas. I'm not sure it will be one of the questions but I ask Him when I see Him, but then again the Bible says at that point 'we will know as we have been known'.
The scripture does not say God condones casting lots. The scripture just says they cast lots. It says they did it as a way to decide. In my opinion I think that the spiritual leadership that Jesus left to take care of the church would have been in tune enough with God to know and their Spirits what they should do. As in all things they should have prayed about it and the majority feeling or View would have decided what would have been done. It seems to me they just made up their minds, based on the scripture they quote, that number 12 needed to be replaced when in essence a few chapters later, that's exactly what Jesus did.
It wouldn't be the first time that men stepped up to the plate to do something that God already have in hand. It might also explain why early on, Peter and Paul had some very confrontational meetings.
The link provides an account of all the people that contributed to making up the Bible.
The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.).
Until the actual date of the establishment of the RCC can be determined I cannot say whether or not they played a part at the Council of Carthage.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

You have a fascinating way of interpreting the bible and twisting history. I honestly don't know how to respond to your above post so therefore I won't.

 

[tom55]

So, it doesn't matter if he's a womanizing, fornicating, sadist...

Somehow, I just don't see the Lord and Savior I know giving His authority to these guys.l

This is were I keep getting hung up or confused on my path forward.

WHO has the authority to reveal the truth and interpret scripture if scripture is the truth and God breathed?

Billy Graham? The Baptist? The RCC? The Methodist? The Orthodox Church? For the last several months I have been reading Christian History and I THINK it am really close to an answer!

 

[StanJ]

It seems you are saying to me that you, StanJ, can read the bible and properly interpret it but anyone who is Catholic can not?
You are saying the Catholic Church's (which is made up of men) interpretation of scripture is erroneous/wrong but StanJ (who is a man) is not erroneous or wrong in his interpretation?

No I'm saying I know what I'm talking about as it relates to the Bible and you know what you're talking about as it relates to the RCC.
You either understand the Bible or you accepted the teachings of the RCC. The two are not always compatible. The topic here is that the RCC gets put down a lot. The OP claims to be RC. Reasons are being given as to why the RCC gets put down or rebuked or refuted. Just because you don't like the reasons doesn't mean they're not true. If you actually followed Jesus Christ and had a personal relationship with him instead of one with an impersonal Institution then you might understand. The church / Body of Christ is not and Institution it is a living breathing organization of people that are devoted 2 and have claimed Jesus Christ as their savior. The head of the church is Jesus Christ. No one else. That is found in the Bible. I'll leave you to discover where.
Now if you wish to debate what the Bible says I'm all for it but if you're going to continually put the RCC on a pedestal as being more spiritual than individual Christians then there's no use in discussing anything with you because the inculcated cannot see the truth.

 

[StanJ]

You have a fascinating way of interpreting the bible and twisting history. I honestly don't know how to respond to your above post so therefore I won't.

That's a cop-out and you know it. I gave you facts, which are easily verifiable. So either refute them or accept them. You do this all the time and quite honestly I don't believe you're being honest when you say you don't know how to respond. I see you respond all the time, except when people refute your position and you have no comeback.

 

[StanJ]

This is were I keep getting hung up or confused on my path forward.
WHO has the authority to reveal the truth and interpret scripture if scripture is the truth and God breathed?
Billy Graham? The Baptist? The RCC? The Methodist? The Orthodox Church? For the last several months I have been reading Christian History and I THINK it am really close to an answer!

The Holy Spirit if you received His baptism. The rest comes down to studying as 2 Timothy 2:15 states.

 

[tom55]

The Holy Spirit if you received His baptism. The rest comes down to studying as 2 Timothy 2:15 states.

I have been baptized and I believe that scripture says baptism is more than just a symbol. Since I believe baptism is more than just a symbol, unlike what some Christians believe and teach, who is right? ME or THEM? Did the Holy Spirit reveal the truth about baptism to me AND them even though we disagree with each other?

If the Holy Spirit reveals to ME that scripture says that communion IS his body and blood, not a symbol, and the Holy Spirit reveals to them that it is a symbol which one of us has received the TRUTH?

One of us had the truth revealed to us. Was it me or them? WHO has the authority to confirm that truth and extricate it from scripture?

 

[StanJ]

I have been baptized and I believe that scripture says baptism is more than just a symbol. Since I believe baptism is more than just a symbol, unlike what some Christians believe and teach, who is right? ME or THEM? Did the Holy Spirit reveal the truth about baptism to me AND them even though we disagree with each other?

I'm not talking about water baptism. I'm talking about the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

If the Holy Spirit reveals to ME that scripture says that communion IS his body and blood, not a symbol, and the Holy Spirit reveals to them that it is a symbol which one of us has received the TRUTH?

The truth is in the Bible and as Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:15 it must be rightly divided period in this case transubstantiation is not supported in the Bible.

One of us had the truth revealed to us. Was it me or them? WHO has the authority to confirm that truth and extricate it from scripture?

As I said above, them. Everyone has the authority to confirm the truth and extricate it from scripture. It is called exegesis.

 

[tom55]

That's a cop-out and you know it. I gave you facts, which are easily verifiable. So either refute them or accept them. You do this all the time and quite honestly I don't believe you're being honest when you say you don't know how to respond. I see you respond all the time, except when people refute your position and you have no comeback.

Sounds as if you are calling me a liar!

How can you or anyone "refute" my position if we, as individuals, are free to read scripture and interpret it with guidance from the Holy Spirit? Isn't that what you believe?

How can I be wrong and you be right if we are both guided by the Holy Spirit? Is it not possible that you are wrong?

Why would I need a "comeback" if I believe what I have stated and backed it up with facts? Several times in our discussions I have proven you wrong by quoting what you said the Catholic Church teaches and then I quoted what the Catholic Church actually teaches by quoting them from their own doctrine. What you said in those discussions was OPPOSITE of the truth so why would I need a "comeback"? Wouldn't the burden of proof to show that you are right be on your shoulders when YOU are the one who is miss-quoting the RCC and not telling the truth?

I am being honest when I say I don't know how to respond to someone who twist the FACTS of history or scripture or RCC teachings. How would you respond to a person who does that?

 

[tom55]

I'm not talking about water baptism. I'm talking about the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

The truth is in the Bible and as Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:15 it must be rightly divided period in this case transubstantiation is not supported in the Bible.

As I said above, them. Everyone has the authority to confirm the truth and extricate it from scripture. It is called exegesis.

When one is baptized with water they are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

If the truth is in the bible and one billion people have used the bible to extricate from it that the bible supports transubstantiation and one billion other people use the bible to say it is not supported in the bible which of the one billion people are right?

 

[tom55]

.
As I said above, them. Everyone has the authority to confirm the truth and extricate it from scripture. It is called exegesis.

Why them and not me? Are you not showing a personal bias instead of logic by choosing THEM?

If "Everyone has the authority to confirm the truth and extricate it from scripture" then how can I be wrong and they be right? How can the RCC church be wrong but the Baptist be right? How can you be wrong and I be right? (or vice a versa)

Can you not see the fallacy of your statement?

 

[StanJ]

Sounds as if you are calling me a liar!
How can you or anyone "refute" my position if we, as individuals, are free to read scripture and interpret it with guidance from the Holy Spirit? Isn't that what you believe?

Sounds can be deceiving. The holy spirit will never contradict the Bible, so in that regard yes, but as I said it requires proper exegesis.

How can I be wrong and you be right if we are both guided by the Holy Spirit? Is it not possible that you are wrong?

I think the answer would be very obvious don't you? The priority is that you have actually received the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit. Have you?
As I've said everything is possible but in this regard highly unlikely. How long have you been studying the Bible? I've been studying it for over 45 years.

Why would I need a "comeback" if I believe what I have stated and backed it up with facts? Several times in our discussions I have proven you wrong by quoting what you said the Catholic Church teaches and then I quoted what the Catholic Church actually teaches by quoting them from their own doctrine. What you said in those discussions was OPPOSITE of the truth so why would I need a "comeback"? Wouldn't the burden of proof to show that you are right be on your shoulders when YOU are the one who is miss-quoting the RCC and not telling the truth?

Well as you didn't back it up with facts here, that is why you need a comeback. Do I really have to explain this to you? Let's just stick to the topic at hand shall we. You are seeming recollection of past events are not very accurate as far as I am concerned. Stay on topic.

I am being honest when I say I don't know how to respond to someone who twist the FACTS of history or scripture or RCC teachings. How would you respond to a person who does that?

If I really did twist the facts then untwist them. Make your point with pertinent citations. It's not hard I do it all the time to people's posts.

 

[StanJ]

Why them and not me? Are you not showing a personal bias instead of logic by choosing THEM?
If "Everyone has the authority to confirm the truth and extricate it from scripture" then how can I be wrong and they be right? How can the RCC church be wrong but the Baptist be right? How can you be wrong and I be right? (or vice a versa)
Can you not see the fallacy of your statement?

Because they're right and you're wrong. Reality is reality and that's not my problem that you either choose to ignore it or refuse to accept it.
I'm sure the Baptist Church has a lot of things wrong as well. As I've already stated a few times it's because I study the Bible and you don't that's how come you're wrong and I'm right. What exactly is the problem with your understanding this? I don't see any fallacies in my statement but I do see an awful lot of denial and yours. Prove your point or move along.

 

[StanJ]

When one is baptized with water they are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

It states; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Exegete this, show us exactly how your assertion can be supported by this scripture?

If the truth is in the bible and one billion people have used the bible to extricate from it that the bible supports transubstantiation and one billion other people use the bible to say it is not supported in the bible which of the one billion people are right?

Yes the truth is in the Bible but 1 billion people have not extricated transubstantiation from the Bible. That is the whole thing about inculcated RCs. They believe what their institution tells them but they don't even bother to go to the Bible and see what the Bible says about it. So how about you show us where the Bible supports transubstantiation?

 

[tom55]

Sounds can be deceiving. The holy spirit will never contradict the Bible, so in that regard yes, but as I said it requires proper exegesis.


I think the answer would be very obvious don't you? The priority is that you have actually received the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit. Have you?
As I've said everything is possible but in this regard highly unlikely. How long have you been studying the Bible? I've been studying it for over 45 years.


Well as you didn't back it up with facts here, that is why you need a comeback. Do I really have to explain this to you? Let's just stick to the topic at hand shall we. You are seeming recollection of past events are not very accurate as far as I am concerned. Stay on topic.


If I really did twist the facts then untwist them. Make your point with pertinent citations. It's not hard I do it all the time to people's posts.

So when you say, " ...I don't believe you're being honest..." your NOT calling me a liar? What do you mean by that statement? I feel like you are saying I am not being truthful in my sincerity and that my friend is still basically calling me a liar.... in my humble opinion.

NO, the answer is not obvious. Can you PLEASE answer: How can I be wrong and you be right if we are both guided by the Holy Spirit?

To answer your question, "Do I really have to explain this to you?" Yes, please explain it to me. I can cut and paste the "recollection of past events" that clearly showed that you were wrong in those discussions. But it sounds like you don't want to re-visit that painful paste so we won't.

It's not a matter of IF you twisted the facts....You did twist the facts as I previously pointed out in some of our discussions on other threads. As far as the discussion on this thread your statements about the Emperor Constantine are verifiably not factual, however, since you have failed to accept any previous facts I have given you I will not waste my time on this subject either.