Christian Forums

 There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Jesus said:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Mt 15:17-18)

Jesus' words only make sense if there is a visible Church with authority over its members; a Church that was founded by Christ himself, not by any man 15+ centuries later.

Of course, you may decide that the Holy Spirit is infallibly telling you that Mt 15:16-17 doesn't really mean what it appears to mean....

I maintain that there is only one Church that can be traced back to the apostles and contains all the authority that Christ gave it. And that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is close but it doesn't accept the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter.

The Catholic Church has the four scriptural marks of the Church Christ founded, as described by Paul and proclaimed in the Nicene Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Eph 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [catholic]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [apostolic]
in whom the whole structure is joined together [one]
and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [holy]

Actually you join the church that has the least Biblical errors, and that follows God the most closely, then you allow The HS to carry on guiding you into all truth. This is what we do. Jesus should have the authority in a good church, not a mere man who is fallible.   

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:58:26
Actually you join the church that has the least Biblical errors, and that follows God the most closely, then you allow The HS to carry on guiding you into all truth. This is what we do.

The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:03:19

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:58:26
Actually you join the church that has the least Biblical errors, and that follows God the most closely, then you allow The HS to carry on guiding you into all truth. This is what we do.

The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

The OP is  - in your personal opinion.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:03:19

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:58:26
Actually you join the church that has the least Biblical errors, and that follows God the most closely, then you allow The HS to carry on guiding you into all truth. This is what we do.

The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

Its just the way God led me over the years. I was bought up in a very religious high church and he has led me right away from that.

As usual - so far neither of you have engaged with the points I made.

It seems to me back to front to decide on doctrine based on personal interpretation of the Bible. and then find a church that fits your interpretation. That's why we have 30,000 different protestant denominations and church groups. And the founders and followers of these churches all claim the Holy Spirit leads them into the truth. But that can't be true.

That isn't what Jesus set up.

Surely the right approach is to find the Church that Jesus founded  and promised to be with until the end of the age, and then take your doctrines from that.

I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

Right, whom, not what system or organization, Catholic or Protestant. And even then, it's merely repeating what the Lord reveals to them, so He still resides as The Teacher. Even His apostles were commanded not to be called Teachers and Fathers, how much more to those who came after?

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:41:41

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

Right, whom, not what system or organization, Catholic or Protestant. And even then, it's merely repeating what the Lord reveals to them, so He still resides as The Teacher. Even His apostles were commanded not to be called Teachers and Fathers, how much more to those who came after?

I think you misunderstand the meaning behind Christ's words.

What do you make of this passage where Paul refers to himself as the Corinthian's "Father"?

1 Cor. 4:14-15
"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel".

Not only that, but Christ appointed the apostles as teachers:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:03:19


The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:03:19


The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

His post was charitable.  He was pointing out that what she wrote was her personal opinion.  Which it was.

Everyone has the ability to form an opinion.  There are good opinions based on objective reality and then there are bad opinions not based on objective reality.

winsome's opinion is based on objective reality, and is really not his opinion, but rather the teaching of the Church Christ founded.

Since we are all equal here in Christ, I'll be waiting to see your equal chastisement of 4WD for his reply to the post which you are chastising winsome for.  Should I be surprised that it hasn't happened already?  Or perhaps are you exhibiting bias?

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:19:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:03:19


The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

His post was charitable.  He was pointing out that what she wrote was her personal opinion.  Which it was.

Everyone has the ability to form an opinion.  There are good opinions based on objective reality and then there are bad opinions not based on objective reality.

winsome's opinion is based on objective reality, and is really not his opinion, but rather the teaching of the Church Christ founded.

Since we are all equal here in Christ, I'll be waiting to see your equal chastisement of 4WD for his reply to the post which you are chastising winsome for.  Should I be surprised that it hasn't happened already?  Or perhaps are you exhibiting bias?

I'll wait for winsome to speak for himself since my question was addressed to him, thank you.

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

The RCatholic church has no authority at all over a large percentage of Christians, and certainly not in my life.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

and yet when others point out the countless serious errors in the RC church, you claim we are attacking your faith.

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:06:38

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

and yet when others point out the countless serious errors in the RC church, you claim we are attacking your faith.

Could you give me an example of that?

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:13:48

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:06:38

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

and yet when others point out the countless serious errors in the RC church, you claim we are attacking your faith.

Could you give me an example of that?

Of what, the errors or your claims?

You do also realise that most believers dont use those term 'protestant,' I certainly dont, and I think labels like that are wrong and pointless. I am a Christian and never label myself either by church or denomination. It seems to be R Catholics who are the few who do use such labels and get hung up on them ::shrug::

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:18:53

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:13:48

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:06:38

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

and yet when others point out the countless serious errors in the RC church, you claim we are attacking your faith.

Could you give me an example of that?

Of what, the errors or your claims?

You do also realise that most believers dont use those term 'protestant,' I certainly dont, and I think labels like that are wrong and pointless. I am a Christian and never label myself either by church or denomination. It seems to be R Catholics who are the few who do use such labels and get hung up on them ::shrug::

An example of my accusing someone of attacking my faith when they point out a "serious error" in the Catholic Church

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:18:53

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:13:48

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:06:38

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

and yet when others point out the countless serious errors in the RC church, you claim we are attacking your faith.

Could you give me an example of that?

Of what, the errors or your claims?

You do also realise that most believers dont use those term 'protestant,' I certainly dont, and I think labels like that are wrong and pointless. I am a Christian and never label myself either by church or denomination. It seems to be R Catholics who are the few who do use such labels and get hung up on them ::shrug::

You seem to like to apply the label "R Catholic"...  Why the duplicity?

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

Your truth in your opinion as a Proselytizing Roman Catholic. 

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:44:21

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:03:19

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:58:26
Actually you join the church that has the least Biblical errors, and that follows God the most closely, then you allow The HS to carry on guiding you into all truth. This is what we do.

The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

The OP is  - in your personal opinion.

::amen!:: EXACTLY!

: MeMyself  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:06:03

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:44:21

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 10:03:19

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:58:26
Actually you join the church that has the least Biblical errors, and that follows God the most closely, then you allow The HS to carry on guiding you into all truth. This is what we do.

The least Biblical errors - in your personal opinion.

A church that follows God most closely - in your personal opinion.

The HS guiding you - in your personal opinion.

The OP is  - in your personal opinion.

::amen!:: EXACTLY!

Is it?

Can we look at the points he made and compare them with reality?  Which part is his opinion?  Does that opinion mirror reality?

If it mirrors reality then it is a justifiable opinion and should not be passed off so quickly.

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

All that authority is clearly self assumed.  I see no indication whatsoever that Jesus granted any authority to anyone today or that He was going to.

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:04:23

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:41:41

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

Right, whom, not what system or organization, Catholic or Protestant. And even then, it's merely repeating what the Lord reveals to them, so He still resides as The Teacher. Even His apostles were commanded not to be called Teachers and Fathers, how much more to those who came after?

I think you misunderstand the meaning behind Christ's words.

What do you make of this passage where Paul refers to himself as the Corinthian's "Father"?

1 Cor. 4:14-15
"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel".

Not only that, but Christ appointed the apostles as teachers:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

He appointed some to teach, but there is still One Teacher. If there wasn't He lied, simple as that. I only mentioned father since it was in the passage but because you asked... not the way you make it. I get what Paul say because I know a brothers who's essentially my father-figure in the faith, much more experienced and knowledgeable, sharing what he shares and counseling the way he does just like a father would with his kid, but I'd never call him Fr, nor would he ever want me to. Paul even wrote that if an elder sin, admonish him like a father, and your brethren like brothers. It's relationship, dude, not positions and titles. There's only one actual Father, one Teacher, one Prophet one Pastor, and the gifts we have should reflect those aspects of His, not replace them.

You say I'm misinterpreting His words, I'm just simply taking it literally.

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:21:37

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

All that authority is clearly self assumed.  I see no indication whatsoever that Jesus granted any authority to anyone today or that He was going to.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there, or that it is made up.

Jesus said "I will be with you always, even to the end of the age".  See any of the 12 around anymore?  Maybe Jesus meant more than just the twelve.

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:28:00

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:04:23

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:41:41

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

Right, whom, not what system or organization, Catholic or Protestant. And even then, it's merely repeating what the Lord reveals to them, so He still resides as The Teacher. Even His apostles were commanded not to be called Teachers and Fathers, how much more to those who came after?

I think you misunderstand the meaning behind Christ's words.

What do you make of this passage where Paul refers to himself as the Corinthian's "Father"?

1 Cor. 4:14-15
"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel".

Not only that, but Christ appointed the apostles as teachers:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

He appointed some to teach, but there is still One Teacher. If there wasn't He lied, simple as that. I only mentioned father since it was in the passage but because you asked... not the way you make it. I get what Paul say because I know a brothers who's essentially my father-figure in the faith, much more experienced and knowledgeable, sharing what he shares and counseling the way he does just like a father would with his kid, but I'd never call him Fr, nor would he ever want me to. Paul even wrote that if an elder sin, admonish him like a father, and your brethren like brothers. It's relationship, dude, not positions and titles. There's only one actual Father, one Teacher, one Prophet one Pastor, and the gifts we have should reflect those aspects of His, not replace them.

You say I'm misinterpreting His words, I'm just simply taking it literally.

Paul called himself a father, and made reference to many others as "fathers in faith" such as Father Abraham and Father Isaac.  These men were "called father".  So either Paul was violating the commandment of God, or you have taken Jesus' words too literally.  I've got my money that the problem is with your literal interpretation and not Paul's usage of the term.

Priests also share that relationship with us, one of a father in the faith, just as Paul was a father in the faith to Timothy.  So we use the title father, as they are a reflection of God's fathership to us. 

I agree that there is only one actual Father one Teacher.  That is all in exact agreement to the Catholic faith.  And our gifts never replace them.

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:47:21
Jesus said "I will be with you always, even to the end of the age".  See any of the 12 around anymore?  Maybe Jesus meant more than just the twelve.

And you base you faith in a religion on that "maybe"?  Interesting.

Beyond that, is Jesus not with them still? I am confident that they are He are together in heaven even now.  And I don't know about you, but I was given the gift of the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38 and else where.  It is through that indwelling Holy Spirit that Christ is with each and every one of His saints, including me and I hope you.

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:54:20

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:28:00

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:04:23

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:41:41

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

Right, whom, not what system or organization, Catholic or Protestant. And even then, it's merely repeating what the Lord reveals to them, so He still resides as The Teacher. Even His apostles were commanded not to be called Teachers and Fathers, how much more to those who came after?

I think you misunderstand the meaning behind Christ's words.

What do you make of this passage where Paul refers to himself as the Corinthian's "Father"?

1 Cor. 4:14-15
"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel".

Not only that, but Christ appointed the apostles as teachers:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

He appointed some to teach, but there is still One Teacher. If there wasn't He lied, simple as that. I only mentioned father since it was in the passage but because you asked... not the way you make it. I get what Paul say because I know a brothers who's essentially my father-figure in the faith, much more experienced and knowledgeable, sharing what he shares and counseling the way he does just like a father would with his kid, but I'd never call him Fr, nor would he ever want me to. Paul even wrote that if an elder sin, admonish him like a father, and your brethren like brothers. It's relationship, dude, not positions and titles. There's only one actual Father, one Teacher, one Prophet one Pastor, and the gifts we have should reflect those aspects of His, not replace them.

You say I'm misinterpreting His words, I'm just simply taking it literally.

Paul called himself a father, and made reference to many others as "fathers in faith" such as Father Abraham and Father Isaac.  These men were "called father".  So either Paul was violating the commandment of God, or you have taken Jesus' words too literally.  I've got my money that the problem is with your literal interpretation and not Paul's usage of the term.

Priests also share that relationship with us, one of a father in the faith, just as Paul was a father in the faith to Timothy.  So we use the title father, as they are a reflection of God's fathership to us. 

I agree that there is only one actual Father one Teacher.  That is all in exact agreement to the Catholic faith.  And our gifts never replace them.

Or perhaps it's your interpretation that would confuse what I present to Paul violating a command? You really expect Paul to give himself a title like that, especially when he considered himself least of the apostles? So taking the words of the Lord as they are is error, but saying Paul adopted a title of authority over the brethren is not?

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:08:46

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:47:21
Jesus said "I will be with you always, even to the end of the age".  See any of the 12 around anymore?  Maybe Jesus meant more than just the twelve.

And you base you faith in a religion on that "maybe"?  Interesting.

Beyond that, is Jesus not with them still? I am confident that they are He are together in heaven even now.  And I don't know about you, but I was given the gift of the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38 and else where.  It is through that indwelling Holy Spirit that Christ is with each and every one of His saints, including me and I hope you.

You are on a roll!  Another good post! ::smile::

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:24:22

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:18:53

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:13:48

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:06:38

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

and yet when others point out the countless serious errors in the RC church, you claim we are attacking your faith.

Could you give me an example of that?

Of what, the errors or your claims?

You do also realise that most believers dont use those term 'protestant,' I certainly dont, and I think labels like that are wrong and pointless. I am a Christian and never label myself either by church or denomination. It seems to be R Catholics who are the few who do use such labels and get hung up on them ::shrug::

You seem to like to apply the label "R Catholic"...  Why the duplicity?

I don't believe you know the meaning of the word, duplicity, otherwise you wouldn't make such an absurd charge.

Where is the Latin rite church located? Rome. Ergo, Roman Catholic.

If you were Eastern Rite Catholic I would refer to you and your church as Eastern Rite Catholic.

Roman Catholic, contrary to your claim in another thread that the term, Roman Catholic, is a pejorative to Catholics, is a particular denomination of Catholicism.

While all Christians are catholic in the scriptural sense wherein we are one in the universal church of Christ.
However, that does not apply under the Catechism of the Latin Rite Roman Catholic body of governors who argue that there is only one church that leads to salvation and that is the Roman Catholic Church. Thereby in that proclamation the RCC is rescinding the scriptures that identify, through Paul and Jesus himself, all faithful to Christ as one universal church, which is the body of faithful in Christ.

But you know this. This is what you and other Roman Catholics here are intimating in threads like this. That the RCC is the only true church. That the RCC faith is the only faith who's members are Christian.

Or do you think Protestants do not recall pope Benedict's proclamations on this matter?
He said that although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.
Those remarks were part of a 16 page document prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A Congregation Benedict use to lead.
(Sic)"....These ecclesial communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood ... cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'churches' in the proper sense," it (the 16 page document) said.
The document is similar to one written in 2000 by the Pope— who was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the time—that sparked an angry reaction from Protestant groups."

Source: CBC News <<<A Catholic News Agency
Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/catholic-church-only-true-church-vatican-says-1.669714)


Basically, you and Winsome and a minority number of others who profess themselves to be Roman Catholic are attempting to reiterate what Benedict proclaimed. You are proselytizing his proclamation that no one is a member of a "true church" unless they recognize the primacy of the pope!

As  an aside, if as it is said by Catholica that the term, Roman Catholic, is a pejorative, i.e. an insult, one would think no Roman Catholic would ever refer to themselves as such. Nor would a Dictionary identify Roman Catholic as  a particular denomination when the Roman Catholic or Latin Rite church has a totally different tradition than do other rites, like eastern rite, etc...

Roman 
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Financial, Acronyms, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Ro·man  (rō′mən)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to ancient or modern Rome or its people or culture.
b. Of or relating to the Roman Empire.
2.
a. Of, relating to, or composed in the Latin language.
b. Of or using the Latin alphabet.
3. Of or relating to the Roman Catholic Church. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Roman)

Further, because Roman Catholic is included in the following definition, it is important I think for readers to understand the import of what Benedict said when he stated , and no this is not a direct quote but is synopsizing his included remarks (per link), that no one who is member of any other church, even as the body of Christians who are the church of God in Christ due to faith alone, are so because they do not recognize the popes primacy.

primacy (ˈpraɪməsɪ)
n, pl -cies
1. the state of being first in rank, grade, etc
2. (Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity the office, rank, or jurisdiction of a primate or senior bishop or (in the Roman Catholic Church) the pope (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Primacy)


Readers need to keep in mind, in fact it is imperative if one is not Roman Catholic, that the pope, according to Roman Catholic teachings, represents God himself. (Keep the primacy claim by Benedict in mind when reading that.)

(Sic)"...But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself." SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE
ON CHRISTIANS AS CITIZENS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII JANUARY 10, 1890
To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic world in Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm)

And this, from that same article source, repeals any Roman Catholic here from charging a Protestant with levying a pejorative when referring to Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics.


(Sic)"...4. It cannot be doubted that duties more numerous and of greater moment devolve on Catholics than upon such as are either not sufficiently enlightened in relation to the Catholic faith, or who are entirely unacquainted with its doctrines. Considering that forthwith upon salvation being brought out for mankind, Jesus Christ laid upon His Apostles the injunction to "preach the Gospel to every creature," He imposed, it is evident, upon all men the duty of learning thoroughly and believing what they were taught. This duty is intimately bound up with the gaining of eternal salvation: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned."[2] But the man who has embraced the Christian faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a subject of the Church as one of the children born of her, and becomes a member of that greatest and holiest body, which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme power, under its invisible head, Jesus Christ ."

None of this however is supported word for word by Christ and his teachings in the scripture of the Bible.
Rather, the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church interpolates scripture in its Catechism so as to empower the pope and the theocratic dictatorship that is the Roman Catholic church. The Catechism of the RCC informs of this.

Also, reading the entire new testament demonstrates Jesus was not starting the Roman Catholic church. None of the rites and rituals or man made traditions the RCC upholds today were practiced by the Apostles of Christ.
There was no pope among them, there was no teaching of purgatory wherein Jesus sacrifice is marginalized and the repentant are not actually fully cleansed of their sins when they accept Jesus dying on the cross in their stead. Rather, the RCC purgatory doctrine teaches that the faithful have to be punished after life so that clinging sins are burned off of them until they can enter Heaven cleansed through their time occupying that abode, purgatory. 
Keep in mind that there use to be a teaching of Limbo as well. But a former pope Benedict declared that was now closed.

To continue. The Apostles did not teach necromancy. Worship and reverence of the dead. Nor did they teach the faithful to collect body parts from the dead that would be decreed saints, as all faithful are saints, so that those could be kept as relics. (An object of religious veneration, especially a piece of the body or a personal item of a saint. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relic))

Nor will the seeker find in scripture wherein Jesus taught his Disciples and the throngs to whom he preached to pray to the dead so that they will intercede on their behalf with him and God.

Nor did Jesus teach that infants must be baptized so as to save them from their sins. In fact Jesus taught that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven we must be as little children. If Children were sinners in Jesus eyes he would not have taught sinners that they are to be like sinners in order to see the kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus did not teach image worship nor did he command that graven images of his apostles be erected among the faithful. (2nd commandment, Exodus 20:4 (New American Standard Bible) "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth)

These are just a few examples of what Jesus did not do that the RCC does claim as his only earthly representative following his teachings.
Jesus destroyed the Jewish temple and called the hierarchy there who sought to command the law of God over the lay members, Vipers.
It is hard to imagine, well not so hard really, that he would then establish an edifice, contain himself and his truth in a denomination, and give himself as dictator in the body of a man, a pope, so as to command the laity yet again. Only this time instead of Jewish Rabbi's have them titled, Roman Catholic priests.

When Jesus told Peter he was the rock upon which he would build his church, and the church, the ekklēsia, Greek and translated to say, those called out, called forth, he was speaking of Peter taking forth the message of the Gospel, the good news, and those called forth to the word would then be Christs church.
1 Corinthians 12:27(AMP) Now you [collectively] are Christ's body and [individually] you are members of it, each part severally and distinct [each with his own place and function].

Ephesians 2:19-22  (AMP)
19 Therefore you are no longer outsiders (exiles, migrants, and aliens, excluded from the rights of citizens), but you now share citizenship with the saints (God's own people, consecrated and set apart for Himself); and you belong to God's [own] household.
20 You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself the chief Cornerstone.
21 In Him the whole structure is joined (bound, welded) together harmoniously, and it continues to rise (grow, increase) into a holy temple in the Lord [a sanctuary dedicated, consecrated, and sacred to the presence of the Lord].
22 In Him [and in fellowship with one another] you yourselves also are being built up [into this structure] with the rest, to form a fixed abode (dwelling place) of God in (by, through) the Spirit.


Ephesians 4:11-13(AMP)
And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers.
12 His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), [that they should do] the work of ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church),
13 [That it might develop] until we all attain oneness in the faith and in the comprehension of the [full and accurate] knowledge of the Son of God, that [we might arrive] at really mature manhood (the completeness of personality which is nothing less than the standard height of Christ's own perfection), the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Christ and the completeness found in Him.


All of this is offered with links and scriptural support not only in this reply but in the myriad number of replies that have been afforded in threads like this and that are designed by their author(s) to inform the non-Roman Catholic member , just this side of the rules, that they are not truly members of the one holy and apostolic church if they are not baptized as Roman Catholics. 

As you can read in Catholicas remarks in this reply quoted above. He believes he is teaching the truth. I respect that he believes he is living his truth.

Read for yourselves dear members here. Do not be led away from Christ and to the self-avowed primacy of a man who sits a throne in a church built in Rome under authority of Constantine in 326A.D. Because a mortal man, a member here, tells you the truth is the Roman Catholic church is the only true church.

The truth of God in Christ is that God is a spirit.

Not a man who decrees his primacy as the embodiment of God on earth.

If Jesus did decree that he would have told his Disciples to teach that they and the faithful shall see him when they look to a pope whom he will anoint so as to embody his spirit within himself as he lords over the Ecclesia. (church)

He did not. There is no scripture that says he did. All that is rebuttal here toward that one and his many friends who avow the RCC is God's only church is supported by scripture and links that refute that boast.

Jesus told his Apostles that when he left the earth he would send the Holy Spirit. And that Holy Spirit resides in all who hold faith in Jesus Christ who told us (His) Kingdom of Heaven is within us.

Jesus died to take away the sins of the world.
You, the faithful, do not have to suffer after you're dead to make up for what Jesus did not do on the cross. Jesus never once said you did.. Jesus saves completely!

God show the seeker the path to enlightenment and the true good news! That God has primacy in Heaven.  ::groupprayer:: HALLELUJAH! And Amen.


(edit missing period)

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:24:22

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:18:53

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:13:48

: chosenone  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:06:38

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

and yet when others point out the countless serious errors in the RC church, you claim we are attacking your faith.

Could you give me an example of that?

Of what, the errors or your claims?

You do also realise that most believers dont use those term 'protestant,' I certainly dont, and I think labels like that are wrong and pointless. I am a Christian and never label myself either by church or denomination. It seems to be R Catholics who are the few who do use such labels and get hung up on them ::shrug::

You seem to like to apply the label "R Catholic"...  Why the duplicity?

Its what you call yourselves I believe ::shrug::  I am simply a Christian.

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:11:25

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:54:20

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:28:00

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:04:23

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:41:41

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:20:08

: LexKnight  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 13:16:16
I'm just gonna address this, because I'm pretty sure it'll remove any ground your teaching here stands on.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Lord. Who else?

The ones to whom the Lord has granted His authority.

Right, whom, not what system or organization, Catholic or Protestant. And even then, it's merely repeating what the Lord reveals to them, so He still resides as The Teacher. Even His apostles were commanded not to be called Teachers and Fathers, how much more to those who came after?

I think you misunderstand the meaning behind Christ's words.

What do you make of this passage where Paul refers to himself as the Corinthian's "Father"?

1 Cor. 4:14-15
"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel".

Not only that, but Christ appointed the apostles as teachers:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

He appointed some to teach, but there is still One Teacher. If there wasn't He lied, simple as that. I only mentioned father since it was in the passage but because you asked... not the way you make it. I get what Paul say because I know a brothers who's essentially my father-figure in the faith, much more experienced and knowledgeable, sharing what he shares and counseling the way he does just like a father would with his kid, but I'd never call him Fr, nor would he ever want me to. Paul even wrote that if an elder sin, admonish him like a father, and your brethren like brothers. It's relationship, dude, not positions and titles. There's only one actual Father, one Teacher, one Prophet one Pastor, and the gifts we have should reflect those aspects of His, not replace them.

You say I'm misinterpreting His words, I'm just simply taking it literally.

Paul called himself a father, and made reference to many others as "fathers in faith" such as Father Abraham and Father Isaac.  These men were "called father".  So either Paul was violating the commandment of God, or you have taken Jesus' words too literally.  I've got my money that the problem is with your literal interpretation and not Paul's usage of the term.

Priests also share that relationship with us, one of a father in the faith, just as Paul was a father in the faith to Timothy.  So we use the title father, as they are a reflection of God's fathership to us. 

I agree that there is only one actual Father one Teacher.  That is all in exact agreement to the Catholic faith.  And our gifts never replace them.

Or perhaps it's your interpretation that would confuse what I present to Paul violating a command? You really expect Paul to give himself a title like that, especially when he considered himself least of the apostles? So taking the words of the Lord as they are is error, but saying Paul adopted a title of authority over the brethren is not?

In another thread Buster D Body Crab made the same comment about "call no man father". I replied that we do not call our priests father but we address them as father. He said I was playing with semantics.

But actually the problem with "call no man father" is the logical error of equivocation. Catholica has already shown how people are called father in the New Testament.

Here are some more examples:
"I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning." (1Jn 2:13)

"And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran" (Acts 7:2)

"Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming!"(Mk 11:10)

Matthew repeatedly refers to fathers in Matt 10:21-37, 15:4-6

Jesus refers to Abraham as father in Lk 16:24, as does James in Jas 2:21. Indeed in the same speech Jesus uses the word fathers (Mt 23:32).

From these we must conclude that Jesus did not mean call no man father in the sense of addressing them as "father".

Going back to equivocation (using the same word with different meanings in the same argument)

The Collins Concise Dictionary gives 28 [yes, twenty eight] different meanings to the verb "call". Some of these are specialist terms (e.g. to "call" at poker), but a couple are relevant here:.
8. (tr) to name or style: they called the dog Rover.
9. (tr) designate: they called him a coward.
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary [less comprehensive with only 8 meanings] puts it:-
"[3.] give a specified name to. address by a specified name, title, etc."

According to a Greek Orthodox priest, who is also a Greek translator, the word translated "call" in Mt 23:9 is misunderstood. I do not understand the technicalities of Greek but apparently the word used (kalesete) is not any of those used to imply a name or title, but means summon or call forth and is in the second person aorist active subjunctive plural form (and no, I don't understand what that is!).

It's the same word that is translated call in Mt 9:13, Mk 2:17 & Lk 5:32. "For I came not to call (kalesai) the righteous, but sinners." 

This would be the following from the Collins Concise Dictionary
1. to speak out or utter (words, sounds etc.) loudly so as to attract attention
2. (tr) to ask or order to come
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary put it:-
"[1.] cry out to (someone) in order to summon them or attract their attention."

This is a different meaning of "call" to that used when Protestants say Catholics call their priests father. Following this understanding means there is no contradiction in scripture, or in Catholics "calling" their priests father.

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:36:45

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

Your truth in your opinion as a Proselytizing Roman Catholic.

Proselytizing? Is pointing out peceived errors proselytizing?

You seem to have no problem pointing out many, what you perceive to be errors in Catholic beliefs, even to the charge of blasphemy.

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 04:40:56

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:36:45

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

Your truth in your opinion as a Proselytizing Roman Catholic.

Proselytizing? Is pointing out peceived errors proselytizing?

You seem to have no problem pointing out many, what you perceive to be errors in Catholic beliefs, even to the charge of blasphemy.

I'm pointing out some of the fundamental flaws in Roman Catholicism. Is that wrong?

This thread purports to preach about the Roman Catholic religion and its authority that, per you , is superior to all other Christian traditions. Therefore, the RCC history, its beliefs, the Catechism and the papal issues wherein that authority is claimed to derive its foundation or right to be in authority over the faithful, is relevant.

Furthermore, if the material I shared here is considered ignorance that is not my responsibility because those sources wherein the excerpts derive are Roman Catholic.

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 05:25:45

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 04:40:56

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:36:45

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 15:02:53

: Buster D Body Crab  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 14:15:52

Well stated. And that is the entire platform for your personal opinion that is your original post for this thread starter.

Your consistent platform and agenda appears to be to condemn the Protestant faith just this side of the flaming rules.

I would say if you are secure in your faith and are a new creature as you professed in other posts that you would consider being more charitable considering this is a Christian forum. Not an exclusively Roman Catholic forum.
As the scriptures say, all are one in Christ Jesus.

I'm pointing out one of the fundamental flaws in Protestantism. Is that wrong?

I think it is charitable to do so and to point out where the truth is to be found.

Your truth in your opinion as a Proselytizing Roman Catholic.

Proselytizing? Is pointing out peceived errors proselytizing?

You seem to have no problem pointing out many, what you perceive to be errors in Catholic beliefs, even to the charge of blasphemy.

I'm pointing out some of the fundamental flaws in Roman Catholicism. Is that wrong?

This thread purports to preach about the Roman Catholic religion and its authority that, per you , is superior to all other Christian traditions. Therefore, the RCC history, its beliefs, the Catechism and the papal issues wherein that authority is claimed to derive its foundation or right to be in authority over the faithful, is relevant.

Furthermore, if the material I shared here is considered ignorance that is not my responsibility because those sources wherein the excerpts derive are Roman Catholic.

You are just demonstrating your ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches.

You are making charges that have nothing to do with the authority of the Church, and seem more like an attempt to take the thread off topic.

Cannot you actually answer the points made in the OP?

There was no pope among them, there was no teaching of purgatory wherein Jesus sacrifice is marginalized and the repentant are not actually fully cleansed of their sins when they accept Jesus dying on the cross in their stead. Rather, the RCC purgatory doctrine teaches that the faithful have to be punished after life so that clinging sins are burned off of them until they can enter Heaven cleansed through their time occupying that abode, purgatory. 

Keep in mind that there use to be a teaching of Limbo as well. But a former pope Benedict declared that was now closed.

To continue. The Apostles did not teach necromancy. Worship and reverence of the dead. Nor did they teach the faithful to collect body parts from the dead that would be decreed saints, as all faithful are saints, so that those could be kept as relics. (An object of religious veneration, especially a piece of the body or a personal item of a saint. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relic))


Nor did Jesus teach that infants must be baptized so as to save them from their sins. In fact Jesus taught that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven we must be as little children. If Children were sinners in Jesus eyes he would not have taught sinners that they are to be like sinners in order to see the kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus did not teach image worship nor did he command that graven images of his apostles be erected among the faithful. (2nd commandment, Exodus 20:4 (New American Standard Bible) "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth)

Take the above. None of these are true arguments against what the Church teaches. Just hiding behind "Jesus didn't preach" is a subterfuge". Are you suggesting that Paul's teaching is to be ignored, or the other books of the NT, or the OT? Should we deduce nothing from scripture as a whole? Perhaps you only accept the gospels as scripture!

None of these are relevant to the OP.

None of these come from Catholic Church documents.

Yes, I read the OP. And once again it is a wall of text designed to levy negative charges against the Protestant faith and by proxy Protestant members here.

Unlike that OP, when the subject line decrees the topic under discussion is the RCC and authority, my rebuttal contains links to Roman Catholic information sources.Therefore, arguing that the rebuttal to your OP is ignorance and not what Roman Catholics believe, given those RCC sources that speak of and to what the RCC teaches, speaks for itself and against your charge. 
Scriptural references speak for themselves if one has a Bible or access to a Bible website.

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 04:34:27
In another thread Buster D Body Crab made the same comment about "call no man father". I replied that we do not call our priests father but we address them as father. He said I was playing with semantics.

But actually the problem with "call no man father" is the logical error of equivocation. Catholica has already shown how people are called father in the New Testament.

Here are some more examples:
"I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning." (1Jn 2:13)

"And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran" (Acts 7:2)

"Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming!"(Mk 11:10)

Matthew repeatedly refers to fathers in Matt 10:21-37, 15:4-6

Jesus refers to Abraham as father in Lk 16:24, as does James in Jas 2:21. Indeed in the same speech Jesus uses the word fathers (Mt 23:32).

From these we must conclude that Jesus did not mean call no man father in the sense of addressing them as "father".

Going back to equivocation (using the same word with different meanings in the same argument)

The Collins Concise Dictionary gives 28 [yes, twenty eight] different meanings to the verb "call". Some of these are specialist terms (e.g. to "call" at poker), but a couple are relevant here:.
8. (tr) to name or style: they called the dog Rover.
9. (tr) designate: they called him a coward.
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary [less comprehensive with only 8 meanings] puts it:-
"[3.] give a specified name to. address by a specified name, title, etc."

According to a Greek Orthodox priest, who is also a Greek translator, the word translated "call" in Mt 23:9 is misunderstood. I do not understand the technicalities of Greek but apparently the word used (kalesete) is not any of those used to imply a name or title, but means summon or call forth and is in the second person aorist active subjunctive plural form (and no, I don't understand what that is!).

It's the same word that is translated call in Mt 9:13, Mk 2:17 & Lk 5:32. "For I came not to call (kalesai) the righteous, but sinners." 

This would be the following from the Collins Concise Dictionary
1. to speak out or utter (words, sounds etc.) loudly so as to attract attention
2. (tr) to ask or order to come
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary put it:-
"[1.] cry out to (someone) in order to summon them or attract their attention."

This is a different meaning of "call" to that used when Protestants say Catholics call their priests father. Following this understanding means there is no contradiction in scripture, or in Catholics "calling" their priests father.

Obviously in the term "call no man father" the reference is not made to a biological father, or a fore-father.
It would be right to write the term as "call no man Father" making the clear distinction that this is about a spiritual (non biological) father.

Whilst you could argue over the title "Father" for a priest...it becomes undeniably spiritual and filled with spiritual awe when people address the Pope as "Holy Father", which by the way is an official title for him.

Now if the Bible states "don't do that" then I keep on wondering why Catholics insist to do it anyway. What's the purpose?
Would the Pope be less Pope if you call him "Pope" or "Mister" or "Sir"?
Why the need to strip the title "Holy Father" away from God and drop it on a human being of which history has shown so many of them being neither holy or a father for all that matters.

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 06:29:24
Yes, I read the OP. And once again it is a wall of text designed to levy negative charges against the Protestant faith and by proxy Protestant members here.

Unlike that OP, when the subject line decrees the topic under discussion is the RCC and authority, my rebuttal contains links to Roman Catholic information sources.Therefore, arguing that the rebuttal to your OP is ignorance and not what Roman Catholics believe, given those RCC sources that speak of and to what the RCC teaches, speaks for itself and against your charge. 
Scriptural references speak for themselves if one has a Bible or access to a Bible website.

Do you call a link to Freedictionary.com a link to authoritative Catholic sources?

Buster, I've come across people who, instead of addressing the OP, post a whole load to negative anti-catholic stuff that they've culled from anti-catholic web sites.

They seem to be trying to either:
a) tie the Catholic up for hours or days answering their points
or
b) deflect the thread from the topic.
or
c) try & provoke the Catholic by going as close to flaming rules as they can.

Of course I'm not suggesting that is happening here.

I can't put you on ignore in case you actually act as a moderator but in future I shall just ignore your posts.

It is obvious you don't read my posts. The free dictionary links were to define "relic".

The other links attached to excerpts are to Roman Catholic information sources.

You object to RCC sources being used to rebut your OP that is not at all linked to any source that supports your contention regarding the RCC and its authority. Then you take issue with someone who uses sources derived from RCC information sites that you have clearly not read.

Not a thing I have said in my rebuttal is false. When the RCC information sources back me up you are the one with the credibility issue.

Furthermore, I am not flaming. It is not flaming to use credible sources in rebuttal. You however, are as close to that line as possible. And repeatedly as you attempt to renounce Protestantism and avow the supremacy of the RCC.  You are not alone in that agenda. When you bring the charges do not complain when you are rebuffed.

You seek to what here? Proclaim the Roman Catholic church is superior and has authority over all Christendom? And then expect not to receive a reply that disagrees?

When what the RCC teaches, and its linked to show proof, warrants the claim from you and others like Catholica that that is not what the RCC teaches, there's an inescapable issue there. When the RCC links prove that is indeed what the RCC teaches those who argue it is not are suspect in their place of knowledge.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 07:05:37

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 04:34:27
In another thread Buster D Body Crab made the same comment about "call no man father". I replied that we do not call our priests father but we address them as father. He said I was playing with semantics.

But actually the problem with "call no man father" is the logical error of equivocation. Catholica has already shown how people are called father in the New Testament.

Here are some more examples:
"I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning." (1Jn 2:13)

"And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran" (Acts 7:2)

"Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming!"(Mk 11:10)

Matthew repeatedly refers to fathers in Matt 10:21-37, 15:4-6

Jesus refers to Abraham as father in Lk 16:24, as does James in Jas 2:21. Indeed in the same speech Jesus uses the word fathers (Mt 23:32).

From these we must conclude that Jesus did not mean call no man father in the sense of addressing them as "father".

Going back to equivocation (using the same word with different meanings in the same argument)

The Collins Concise Dictionary gives 28 [yes, twenty eight] different meanings to the verb "call". Some of these are specialist terms (e.g. to "call" at poker), but a couple are relevant here:.
8. (tr) to name or style: they called the dog Rover.
9. (tr) designate: they called him a coward.
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary [less comprehensive with only 8 meanings] puts it:-
"[3.] give a specified name to. address by a specified name, title, etc."

According to a Greek Orthodox priest, who is also a Greek translator, the word translated "call" in Mt 23:9 is misunderstood. I do not understand the technicalities of Greek but apparently the word used (kalesete) is not any of those used to imply a name or title, but means summon or call forth and is in the second person aorist active subjunctive plural form (and no, I don't understand what that is!).

It's the same word that is translated call in Mt 9:13, Mk 2:17 & Lk 5:32. "For I came not to call (kalesai) the righteous, but sinners." 

This would be the following from the Collins Concise Dictionary
1. to speak out or utter (words, sounds etc.) loudly so as to attract attention
2. (tr) to ask or order to come
or as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary put it:-
"[1.] cry out to (someone) in order to summon them or attract their attention."

This is a different meaning of "call" to that used when Protestants say Catholics call their priests father. Following this understanding means there is no contradiction in scripture, or in Catholics "calling" their priests father.

Obviously in the term "call no man father" the reference is not made to a biological father, or a fore-father.
It would be right to write the term as "call no man Father" making the clear distinction that this is about a spiritual (non biological) father.

Whilst you could argue over the title "Father" for a priest...it becomes undeniably spiritual and filled with spiritual awe when people address the Pope as "Holy Father", which by the way is an official title for him.

Now if the Bible states "don't do that" then I keep on wondering why Catholics insist to do it anyway. What's the purpose?
Would the Pope be less Pope if you call him "Pope" or "Mister" or "Sir"?
Why the need to strip the title "Holy Father" away from God and drop it on a human being of which history has shown so many of them being neither holy or a father for all that matters.

Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing's association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.

In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is "holy." In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." God's dwelling place in the Tabernacle is "holy" (Ex 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called "holy" in Leviticus 10:17.

After Christ's death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the- (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the-)

None of those reasons overcomes Jesus Christ and his own command in Matthew 23:10.

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 07:18:52
After Christ's death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the- (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the-)

And you were arguing with me about God calling us holy.  Did you learn something in that exchange or were you just being cantankerous?

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 07:18:52
Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing's association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.

In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is "holy." In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." God's dwelling place in the Tabernacle is "holy" (Ex 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called "holy" in Leviticus 10:17.

After Christ's death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the- (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the-)

If indeed this argument is what the RCC uses to call the Pope "Holy Father", then by that same argument all men in the RCC are "Holy Fathers"
In fact, by this argument I would also be a "Holy Father"...maybe I should ask my kids to start addressing me that way...

Of course your argument does not hold ground because the RCC does NOT call all those fathers in the church who are Christians "Holy Fathers" and in fact one would be held in contempt if one did.

Now in your reply I see you call your self "his holy people" meaning you are the holy people of the Pope.
See, thats exactly what the Bible text "do not call any man Father" is agitating against.
What you should be stating is that you are "His holy people" meaning you are the holy people under Christ, and with that you should call God "Holy Father".

See, you belong to Christ and NOT to the Pope because you are bought with a price.
Christ paid with His blood and now you belong to Him...and not to the "holy father" in Rome.
The Pope never bought you or died for you or suffered for you or shed his blood for you...hence you do NOT belong to the Pope.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 07:18:52
Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing's association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.

In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is "holy." In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." God's dwelling place in the Tabernacle is "holy" (Ex 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called "holy" in Leviticus 10:17.

After Christ's death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the- (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the-)

If indeed this argument is what the RCC uses to call the Pope "Holy Father", then by that same argument all men in the RCC are "Holy Fathers"
In fact, by this argument I would also be a "Holy Father"...maybe I should ask my kids to start addressing me that way...

I don't see why. The title is applied to one man in a particular situation - that of having been appointed by Christ as Universal Shepherd of His flock.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10
Of course your argument does not hold ground because the RCC does NOT call all those fathers in the church who are Christians "Holy Fathers" and in fact one would be held in contempt if one did.

All men are not appointed by Christ to be the Universal Shepherds of Christ's flock.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10
Now in your reply I see you call your self "his holy people" meaning you are the holy people of the Pope.
See, thats exactly what the Bible text "do not call any man Father" is agitating against.
What you should be stating is that you are "His holy people" meaning you are the holy people under Christ, and with that you should call God "Holy Father".

See, you belong to Christ and NOT to the Pope because you are bought with a price.
Christ paid with His blood and now you belong to Him...and not to the "holy father" in Rome.
The Pope never bought you or died for you or suffered for you or shed his blood for you...hence you do NOT belong to the Pope.

Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (Jn 10:11)

He has a flock
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. (Jn 10:16)

He is the successor of King David whom God promised would look after his sheep (Ez 34:23)

Then in John 21:15-17 he asks Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17).

Jesus is still the good shepherd, the sheep still belong to him, but he is giving them into Peter's charge to look after on his behalf. They are "his" in the sense he has been given resposibility for looking after them here on earth.


Jesus has said about his sheep "they will hear my voice". He also said to those to whom he gave authority "whoever listens to you listens to me" (Lk 10:16). So when Peter (and his successor) speaks under authority of Jesus then we hear Jesus our good shepherd.

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:25:14

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 07:18:52
Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing's association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.

In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is "holy." In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." God's dwelling place in the Tabernacle is "holy" (Ex 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called "holy" in Leviticus 10:17.

After Christ's death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the- (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the-)

If indeed this argument is what the RCC uses to call the Pope "Holy Father", then by that same argument all men in the RCC are "Holy Fathers"
In fact, by this argument I would also be a "Holy Father"...maybe I should ask my kids to start addressing me that way...

I don't see why. The title is applied to one man in a particular situation - that of having been appointed by Christ as Universal Shepherd of His flock.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10
Of course your argument does not hold ground because the RCC does NOT call all those fathers in the church who are Christians "Holy Fathers" and in fact one would be held in contempt if one did.

All men are not appointed by Christ to be the Universal Shepherds of Christ's flock.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10
Now in your reply I see you call your self "his holy people" meaning you are the holy people of the Pope.
See, thats exactly what the Bible text "do not call any man Father" is agitating against.
What you should be stating is that you are "His holy people" meaning you are the holy people under Christ, and with that you should call God "Holy Father".

See, you belong to Christ and NOT to the Pope because you are bought with a price.
Christ paid with His blood and now you belong to Him...and not to the "holy father" in Rome.
The Pope never bought you or died for you or suffered for you or shed his blood for you...hence you do NOT belong to the Pope.

Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (Jn 10:11)

He has a flock
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. (Jn 10:16)

He is the successor of King David whom God promised would look after his sheep (Ez 34:23)

Then in John 21:15-17 he asks Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17).

Jesus is still the good shepherd, the sheep still belong to him, but he is giving them into Peter's charge to look after on his behalf. They are "his" in the sense he has been given resposibility for looking after them here on earth.


Jesus has said about his sheep "they will hear my voice". He also said to those to whom he gave authority "whoever listens to you listens to me" (Lk 10:16). So when Peter (and his successor) speaks under authority of Jesus then we hear Jesus our good shepherd.

No Winsome, I am not going to argue about the position of the Pope. We have done that plenty of times in the past.
I want to take you up on your argumentation.

Earlier in this post someone aid that calling a priest "Father" is not correct.
You then came with the argumentation that there is nothing wrong with that by summarizing a whole list of biological (fore)fathers in the Bible.
I am a biological father too. Hence with your argumentation I would be correct to ask from my children to call me "Father".
And since I am also raising my children in the faith, I also serve as a spiritual father to them.

Your argumentation to calling someone "holy" too is an argumentation that can be applied to any Christian.
The Bible verses you applied make no differentiation, and tells us that all believers are holy regardless of rank and position.
So by that argumentation, I too am "Holy".

Then put those two together "Holy" + "Father"...and to my children (and the rest of the world) I am a "Holy Father".

Even if I were to follow your train of thought, I could never come to the conclusion that the Pope is the only "Holy Father".
First of all the Pope is not a biological father, or any priest.
So you are only left with the spiritual.
The Bible tells us there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God.

You can also not exclusively attribute the term "holy" to the Pope.
Just read back to the Bible verses you posted...the term "holy" applies to all believers.

You clearly are in contradiction or violation of your own argumentation because the Bible verses you brought up never apply to a "universally appointed singular human being".
That's the claim the RCC makes...and its unsound argumentation.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:38:31

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:25:14

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 07:18:52
Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing's association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.

In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is "holy." In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." God's dwelling place in the Tabernacle is "holy" (Ex 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called "holy" in Leviticus 10:17.

After Christ's death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the- (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-call-the-pope-the-holy-father-if-the-bible-says-only-persons-of-the-)

If indeed this argument is what the RCC uses to call the Pope "Holy Father", then by that same argument all men in the RCC are "Holy Fathers"
In fact, by this argument I would also be a "Holy Father"...maybe I should ask my kids to start addressing me that way...

I don't see why. The title is applied to one man in a particular situation - that of having been appointed by Christ as Universal Shepherd of His flock.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10
Of course your argument does not hold ground because the RCC does NOT call all those fathers in the church who are Christians "Holy Fathers" and in fact one would be held in contempt if one did.

All men are not appointed by Christ to be the Universal Shepherds of Christ's flock.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 08:07:10
Now in your reply I see you call your self "his holy people" meaning you are the holy people of the Pope.
See, thats exactly what the Bible text "do not call any man Father" is agitating against.
What you should be stating is that you are "His holy people" meaning you are the holy people under Christ, and with that you should call God "Holy Father".

See, you belong to Christ and NOT to the Pope because you are bought with a price.
Christ paid with His blood and now you belong to Him...and not to the "holy father" in Rome.
The Pope never bought you or died for you or suffered for you or shed his blood for you...hence you do NOT belong to the Pope.

Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (Jn 10:11)

He has a flock
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. (Jn 10:16)

He is the successor of King David whom God promised would look after his sheep (Ez 34:23)

Then in John 21:15-17 he asks Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17).

Jesus is still the good shepherd, the sheep still belong to him, but he is giving them into Peter's charge to look after on his behalf. They are "his" in the sense he has been given resposibility for looking after them here on earth.


Jesus has said about his sheep "they will hear my voice". He also said to those to whom he gave authority "whoever listens to you listens to me" (Lk 10:16). So when Peter (and his successor) speaks under authority of Jesus then we hear Jesus our good shepherd.

No Winsome, I am not going to argue about the position of the Pope. We have done that plenty of times in the past.
I want to take you up on your argumentation.

Earlier in this post someone aid that calling a priest "Father" is not correct.
You then came with the argumentation that there is nothing wrong with that by summarizing a whole list of biological (fore)fathers in the Bible.
I am a biological father too. Hence with your argumentation I would be correct to ask from my children to call me "Father".
And since I am also raising my children in the faith, I also serve as a spiritual father to them.

Your argumentation to calling someone "holy" too is an argumentation that can be applied to any Christian.
The Bible verses you applied make no differentiation, and tells us that all believers are holy regardless of rank and position.
So by that argumentation, I too am "Holy".

Then put those two together "Holy" + "Father"...and to my children (and the rest of the world) I am a "Holy Father".

Even if I were to follow your train of thought, I could never come to the conclusion that the Pope is the only "Holy Father".
First of all the Pope is not a biological father, or any priest.
So you are only left with the spiritual.
The Bible tells us there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God.

You can also not exclusively attribute the term "holy" to the Pope.
Just read back to the Bible verses you posted...the term "holy" applies to all believers.

You clearly are in contradiction or violation of your own argumentation because the Bible verses you brought up never apply to a "universally appointed singular human being".
That's the claim the RCC makes...and its unsound argumentation.

If you read Catholica's post you will see that he dealt with the spiritual father aspect. I added in some examples of men being called father. One was spiritual, the rest biological. Christ's command did not distinguish.

My argument that is was not wrong was based on the mis-use of the word 'call'. That it is being misused is shown by the list of people whom scripture calls father. We know that scripture does not contradict itself. The misuse is equivocation.

I don't know that the Catholic Church claims that there can only be one Holy Father.
The Orthodox call many of their men saints "Holy Father".  I've never heard the Catholic Church objecting to that.
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Holy_Fathers/ (http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Holy_Fathers/)

If you want you children to call you holy father then that is up to you. Why should that stop Catholics calling the Pope "Holy Father" ..


Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God". 

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:08:46

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:47:21
Jesus said "I will be with you always, even to the end of the age".  See any of the 12 around anymore?  Maybe Jesus meant more than just the twelve.

And you base you faith in a religion on that "maybe"?  Interesting.

I used a colloquialism to try to address you as more of a person and brother but it seems that that backfired.

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:08:46
Beyond that, is Jesus not with them still? I am confident that they are He are together in heaven even now.

Is that how you interpret that verse?  That it just applies to the apostles?  Perhaps Jesus isn't with all of us then, even to the end of the age.  That is what you are implying now.

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:03:23



Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God".

That is a blatant untruth. Matthew 23:9 (RSV)And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Is the absolute proof of that.
This is the danger of letting errant teachings go unaddressed. If they are allowed to stand they risk peoples souls.

And to put Matthew 23:9 into context) John 4:21-24  (RSV)
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:24:51

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:03:23



Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God".

That is a blatant untruth. Matthew 23:9 (RSV)And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Is the absolute proof of that.
This is the danger of letting errant teachings go unaddressed. If they are allowed to stand they risk peoples souls.

The literal meaning of this passage and the hyperbole that Jesus is speaking with has been lost on you.

What did the Jews understand it meant to call a man 'Father' or 'Rabbi' or 'teacher'?

There were at least two schools of Judaism in existence at that time; one was the school of Hillel and the other was the school of Shammai.  These schools of thought were opposing each other.  But people would identify under one or the other and that is how they would go about their lives.

What Jesus was actually meaning when he said that phrase is that the apostles should unite under one school of teaching and not go off and have their own schools each, and that united teaching should be from the teaching of Jesus, who was teaching the true teachings of God the Father.  And it has nothing to do with referring to another human being as "father".

But let's imagine for a moment that it did mean that no other person should be referred to as "father".  What are the ramifications?

Well, for starters, the relationship of father with one's own biological "father" no longer remains a reference point toward understanding our relationship with our heavenly Father.  If my own male biological ancestor I should not call 'father' then how am I to understand what calling God "Father" means?  Calling God "Father" then loses all those connotations that go with the "Father" relationship.

Second, we see verses in scripture that defy said "rule" of Jesus, making the teachings of the apostles who wrote them or said them highly suspect.  Are you going to trust Paul who referred to himself as a spiritual father and called Timothy his spiritual son several times to be a faithful witness of the Gospel?

Third, in America Protestants used to call their ministers "Father".  That is, until the Irish Catholics arrived, who (fairly uniquely among Catholics) called priests Father.  And because there was so much anti-Catholicism in America when Catholics started arriving en masse, Protestants stopped using the title "Father" and soon developed the polemic denouncing the title as we see today.

Do we call people "Mister"?  Mister is another form of the word "Master" derived from the German "Meister".  Is Jesus your one Master?  Then why do you call people "mister"?

The whole argument against the use of the Title "Father" is so inane.  No one confuses "priest so-and-so" and the source of divine teaching "the Father" in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic faith is both centralized and historical, going back to the apostles. 

I sometimes wonder, however, if what non-Catholic Bible-only Christians do is not more like what Jesus warned against, which literally is a warning for the apostles to remain united under one teacher and not to form different sects, especially with different teachings, which is how non-Catholic Bible-only "denominations" are "organized".  It is precisely that situation which Jesus was warning the apostles against.

Matthew 23:8-10
8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

: Reformation Study Bible23:8–10 In forbidding the use of the titles "Rabbi" (v. 8), "father" (v. 9), and "instructors" (lit. "leaders," v. 10), Jesus does not prohibit organization or the use of all titles in the church (cf. Acts 20:17; 1 Cor. 9:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2, 8, 12; Titus 1:5–7). His warning is against the temptation to accord human leaders the authority and prerogatives that belong to God alone—a temptation here exemplified by the use of pretentious forms of address.

As well as the above, it is possible that False God's may be included in that explanation.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:18:36

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:08:46

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:47:21
Jesus said "I will be with you always, even to the end of the age".  See any of the 12 around anymore?  Maybe Jesus meant more than just the twelve.

And you base you faith in a religion on that "maybe"?  Interesting.

I used a colloquialism to try to address you as more of a person and brother but it seems that that backfired.

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:08:46
Beyond that, is Jesus not with them still? I am confident that they are He are together in heaven even now.

Is that how you interpret that verse?  That it just applies to the apostles?  Perhaps Jesus isn't with all of us then, even to the end of the age.  That is what you are implying now.

Are you suggesting that Jesus isn't with us?  If we have received the gift [indwelling] of the Holy Spirit, Paul says that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.  And he says we have clothed ourselves with Christ.  But I also believe that Jesus Christ is in heaven seated at the right of God the Father.  Perhaps that is a part of what meant by omnipresence. And I believe that the apostles are in heaven as well.

I have no problem with the statement or the concept of Jesus being with the apostles or us even to the end of the age.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:50:03

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:24:51

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:03:23



Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God".

That is a blatant untruth. Matthew 23:9 (RSV)And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Is the absolute proof of that.
This is the danger of letting errant teachings go unaddressed. If they are allowed to stand they risk peoples souls.

The literal meaning of this passage and the hyperbole that Jesus is speaking with has been lost on you....

You refer to a literal meaning of the passage in verse 9 and then state that Jesus,in what you've said is a literal passage first,  is using hyperbole. You've just countered your own proclamation. Hyperbole is exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


You cannot dismiss Jesus teachings with such contradictory charges  and therein seek to dismiss the import of the passage and Jesus' command in Matthew 23:9. 

edit for language

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:24:51

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:03:23



Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God".

That is a blatant untruth. Matthew 23:9 (RSV)And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Is the absolute proof of that.
This is the danger of letting errant teachings go unaddressed. If they are allowed to stand they risk peoples souls.

And to put Matthew 23:9 into context) John 4:21-24  (RSV)
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Amen Buster. This whole discourse Matt 23 about the pride of the Pharisees is ignored, trivialized, and explained away by Catholic apologists. They make the teaching of Christ a mockery. They play up the pope by using the instruction of Jesus to Peter to feed His sheep. I never argue about this. It is the using of this verse to justify a pope who sits on a throne dressed as Monarch with men bowing and kissing His ring. They want to call this earthly man Holy Father. Exalting with adoration like God upon the earth. Every time I picture this in my mind I want to vomit. 

Jesus did say to Peter three times to feed his sheep but lets see what he did not say to Him. He did not say go change your garments for religious robes of monarchs and to be exalted above the congregation ignoring the Lords teach in Matt 23. More over not one of the twelve ignored this teaching about being exalted above any one. 

This whole pompous parade is a sham and affront to Christ and all He taught about be abase. I don't believe any one should allow himself to be called Holy Father.  Do you Catholics believe that Peter would have allowed anyone to call him that.   What do you say Catholica -- Winsome   Is there anything Christ taught his apostles that any of the apostles  would sit as a pope on an earthly throne and to be called Holly Father?

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 10:06:47

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:50:03

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:24:51

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:03:23



Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God".

That is a blatant untruth. Matthew 23:9 (RSV)And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Is the absolute proof of that.
This is the danger of letting errant teachings go unaddressed. If they are allowed to stand they risk peoples souls.

The literal meaning of this passage and the hyperbole that Jesus is speaking with has been lost on you....

You refer to a literal meaning of the passage in verse 9 and then state that Jesus,in what you've said is a literal passage first,  is using hyperbole. You've just countered your own proclamation. Hyperbole is exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


You cannot dismiss Jesus teachings with such contradictory charges  and therein seek to dismiss the import of the passage and Jesus' command in Matthew 23:9. 

edit for language

The "literal meaning" is the point that someone is trying to make when they say something.

When someone says that "it is raining cats and dogs", the literal meaning is that it is raining very hard.  If someone took that phrase TOO literally, or better, "literalistically", then if they walked outside they would fully expect to be pelted with animals of the canine and feline variety.

I am not dismissing what Jesus said.  I am "using scripture to interpret scripture".  The Holy Spirit elsewhere in scripture inspired many other people to use the term "father" regarding spiritual relationships.  Therefore saying that Jesus said "call no man father" as a prohibition against using the title "father" is taking what he said "too literally" or better, "literalistically".  The hyperbole in this verse is hyperbole that has a point, that the teaching needs to come from God, and we should be unified in it, not taking pride that so and so taught this or that, to avoid divisions, to avoid pride, and accept that Jesus is the source of divine revelation from the father, and not to separate into factions.

: 4WD  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 10:01:07

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:18:36

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:08:46

: Catholica  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 16:47:21
Jesus said "I will be with you always, even to the end of the age".  See any of the 12 around anymore?  Maybe Jesus meant more than just the twelve.

And you base you faith in a religion on that "maybe"?  Interesting.

I used a colloquialism to try to address you as more of a person and brother but it seems that that backfired.

: 4WD  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 17:08:46
Beyond that, is Jesus not with them still? I am confident that they are He are together in heaven even now.

Is that how you interpret that verse?  That it just applies to the apostles?  Perhaps Jesus isn't with all of us then, even to the end of the age.  That is what you are implying now.

Are you suggesting that Jesus isn't with us?  If we have received the gift [indwelling] of the Holy Spirit, Paul says that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.  And he says we have clothed ourselves with Christ.  But I also believe that Jesus Christ is in heaven seated at the right of God the Father.  Perhaps that is a part of what meant by omnipresence. And I believe that the apostles are in heaven as well.

I have no problem with the statement or the concept of Jesus being with the apostles or us even to the end of the age.

On the contrary, I am arguing that Jesus is with us.  With the apostles and their successors the same way that Jesus was with his apostles even after he ascended.  He is with lay people in a different way; however it was the commission to the apostles to "go forth and teach".  To think that there would not remain a central teaching authority to this day is, well, a thought child of the Protestant revolution.  The apostles were given that sacred duty in a centralized way.  That same centralization that Jesus intended for the church and safeguarded in the apostles, he safeguards the same way to this day, and even to the end of the age.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 10:38:12

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 10:06:47

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:50:03

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:24:51

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:03:23



Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God".

That is a blatant untruth. Matthew 23:9 (RSV)And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Is the absolute proof of that.
This is the danger of letting errant teachings go unaddressed. If they are allowed to stand they risk peoples souls.

The literal meaning of this passage and the hyperbole that Jesus is speaking with has been lost on you....

You refer to a literal meaning of the passage in verse 9 and then state that Jesus,in what you've said is a literal passage first,  is using hyperbole. You've just countered your own proclamation. Hyperbole is exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


You cannot dismiss Jesus teachings with such contradictory charges  and therein seek to dismiss the import of the passage and Jesus' command in Matthew 23:9. 

edit for language

The "literal meaning" is the point that someone is trying to make when they say something.

When someone says that "it is raining cats and dogs", the literal meaning is that it is raining very hard.  If someone took that phrase TOO literally, or better, "literalistically", then if they walked outside they would fully expect to be pelted with animals of the canine and feline variety.

I am not dismissing what Jesus said.  I am "using scripture to interpret scripture".  The Holy Spirit elsewhere in scripture inspired many other people to use the term "father" regarding spiritual relationships.  Therefore saying that Jesus said "call no man father" as a prohibition against using the title "father" is taking what he said "too literally" or better, "literalistically".  The hyperbole in this verse is hyperbole that has a point, that the teaching needs to come from God, and we should be unified in it, not taking pride that so and so taught this or that, to avoid divisions, to avoid pride, and accept that Jesus is the source of divine revelation from the father, and not to separate into factions.

What you are dismissing here is a man who sits exalting  himself on a throne like a king moreover God upon the earth being called Holy Father totally ignoring Christ teaching.  I call My own dad Father but I would not call any earthly man Holy Father. It says we are to be holy but do you know any one who thinks he is worthy to be called holy let alone Holy Father.  To think one is supreme over the earth.

You always trivialize and explain away.      This whole exalted order is coming to Judgment   

: mclees8  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 10:25:26

: Buster D Body Crab  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:24:51

: winsome  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 09:03:23



Finally the Bible does not tell us "there is only one spiritual Father...and that is God".

That is a blatant untruth. Matthew 23:9 (RSV)And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Is the absolute proof of that.
This is the danger of letting errant teachings go unaddressed. If they are allowed to stand they risk peoples souls.

And to put Matthew 23:9 into context) John 4:21-24  (RSV)
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Amen Buster. This whole discourse Matt 23 about the pride of the Pharisees is ignored, trivialized, and explained away by Catholic apologists. They make the teaching of Christ a mockery. They play up the pope by using the instruction of Jesus to Peter to feed His sheep. I never argue about this. It is the using of this verse to justify a pope who sits on a throne dressed as Monarch with men bowing and kissing His ring. They want to call this earthly man Holy Father. Exalting with adoration like God upon the earth. Every time I picture this in my mind I want to vomit. 

Jesus did say to Peter three times to feed his sheep but lets see what he did not say to Him. He did not say go change your garments for religious robes of monarchs and to be exalted above the congregation ignoring the Lords teach in Matt 23. More over not one of the twelve ignored this teaching about being exalted above any one. 

This whole pompous parade is a sham and affront to Christ and all He taught about be abase. I don't believe any one should allow himself to be called Holy Father.  Do you Catholics believe that Peter would have allowed anyone to call him that.   What do you say Catholica -- Winsome   Is there anything Christ taught his apostles that any of the apostles  would sit as a pope on an earthly throne and to be called Holly Father?

Been there! Done that!

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/of-robes-and-rings-and-other-things/ (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/of-robes-and-rings-and-other-things/)

God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead::

 ::amen!::

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

Amen to that!

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

Amen to that, a perfect description of the Catholic Church before there were any divisions in Christianity requiring the need to specify that the Church is Catholic.  If you omit the part about the names, that is the same as the Catholic Church is today.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 14:59:57

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

Amen to that, a perfect description of the Catholic Church before there were any divisions in Christianity requiring the need to specify that the Church is Catholic.  If you omit the part about the names, that is the same as the Catholic Church is today.

Its a perfect description of all of Gods children, His body, The Bride of Christ, regardless of their denominations or churches.   

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:20:28

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 14:59:57

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

Amen to that, a perfect description of the Catholic Church before there were any divisions in Christianity requiring the need to specify that the Church is Catholic.  If you omit the part about the names, that is the same as the Catholic Church is today.

Its a perfect description of all of Gods children, His body, The Bride of Christ, regardless of their denominations or churches.   

Exactly.  Everyone who has received the Holy Spirit through water baptism and remains in a state of grace.   ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead::

God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.


Amen to that!  Amen and Amen!
Is it wrong do you think, to question or wonder if some religions or denominations fall under this statement of truth?   

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:36:21
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.


Amen to that!  Amen and Amen!
Is it wrong do you think, to question or wonder if some religions or denominations fall under this statement of truth?   

If this is a "statement of truth" then yes, it is wrong.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:27:11

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:20:28

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 14:59:57

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

Amen to that, a perfect description of the Catholic Church before there were any divisions in Christianity requiring the need to specify that the Church is Catholic.  If you omit the part about the names, that is the same as the Catholic Church is today.

Its a perfect description of all of Gods children, His body, The Bride of Christ, regardless of their denominations or churches.   

Exactly.  Everyone who has received the Holy Spirit through water baptism and remains in a state of grace.   ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead::

Its for those who have given their lives to Jesus and had the HS come to live in them on their rebirth. Once we are adopted as His children we are His, we then have a believers baptism to confirm that fact. No babies sprinkling will do that, and and its not up to us and our religious works to remain in that 'state of Grace', its because of HIM that we are already in his love and forgiveness and Grace.  ::clappingoverhead::

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:36:21
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.


Amen to that!  Amen and Amen!
Is it wrong do you think, to question or wonder if some religions or denominations fall under this statement of truth?   

I think we should all need to be questioning and searching things all the time. For example, many like the JW's and the Mormons believe they are part of His church, in fact they think they ARE His church(which is one way of telling they are deceived).

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:50:45

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:27:11

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:20:28

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 14:59:57

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 12:24:54
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

Amen to that, a perfect description of the Catholic Church before there were any divisions in Christianity requiring the need to specify that the Church is Catholic.  If you omit the part about the names, that is the same as the Catholic Church is today.

Its a perfect description of all of Gods children, His body, The Bride of Christ, regardless of their denominations or churches.   

Exactly.  Everyone who has received the Holy Spirit through water baptism and remains in a state of grace.   ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead::

Its for those who have given their lives to Jesus and had the HS come to live in them on their rebirth. Once we are adopted as His children we are His, we then have a believers baptism to confirm that fact. No babies sprinkling will do that, and and its not up to us and our religious works to remain in that 'state of Grace', its because of HIM that we are already in his love and forgiveness and Grace.  ::clappingoverhead::

God can save babies through baptism too!  There is no limit to whom God can save!   ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead::

God permits us to show him we love him through our good works, and through that we can merit rewards in heaven.  He is also just and chastises us when we sin so that we might turn back to him and be saved.  What a merciful and just God we have!  We adore thee oh Lord!   ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead::

Catholica, I wasn't asking you.

Also, you came right in to clarify for yourself that you thought that the church he speaks of is the Catholic Church. Did you not?  He clearly said he did not mean the Catholic church persey...  or any denom. 

Yet, you felt the need to clarify who is and who isn't of that statement....  It makes me wonder... that is all.  Many may claim theirs is the group that is the church, but I just wonder... are they really.  And I asked, is it wrong to wonder. 

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:54:07

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:36:21
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.


Amen to that!  Amen and Amen!
Is it wrong do you think, to question or wonder if some religions or denominations fall under this statement of truth?   

I think we should all need to be questioning and searching things all the time. For example, many like the JW's and the Mormons believe they are part of His church, in fact they think they ARE His church(which is one way of telling they are deceived).

Sounds like you have two definitions of "church" that you use at different times. 

What makes you think that spirit-filled Mormon are not his church?  After all, it is Christ who gives gifts to His Church and the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers, and His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels, like "Mormonism"  (I thought that's what we are saying here, maybe you are changing your mind?)

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:58:09
Catholica, I wasn't asking you.

In fact, you weren't asking anyone by name.  I was just the first to respond.  We are all agreeing here.

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:58:09
Also, you came right in to clarify for yourself that you thought that the church he speaks of is the Catholic Church. Did you not?  He clearly said he did not mean the Catholic church persey...  or any denom.

There is only one church after all, which needs no name, and it consists of those persons united in the body of Christ, who are under leaders selected by the Holy Spirit.

Yet, you felt the need to clarify who is and who isn't of that statement....  It makes me wonder... that is all.  Many may claim theirs is the group that is the church, but I just wonder... are they really.  And I asked, is it wrong to wonder.

If you know the statement is true, then it would be a contradiction to wonder.  Either it's true or it's not.  If it's true then denomination name is meaningless, and there is no need to wonder, am I right?

ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

I assume that you aren't saying that your "church of all believers" is saying that his precious Mormon children are excluded and not saved.  God wouldn't be at all happy with you saying that.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:01:57

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:58:09
Catholica, I wasn't asking you.

In fact, you weren't asking anyone by name.  I was just the first to respond.  We are all agreeing here.

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:58:09
Also, you came right in to clarify for yourself that you thought that the church he speaks of is the Catholic Church. Did you not?  He clearly said he did not mean the Catholic church persey...  or any denom.

There is only one church after all, which needs no name, and it consists of those persons united in the body of Christ, who are under leaders selected by the Holy Spirit.

Yet, you felt the need to clarify who is and who isn't of that statement....  It makes me wonder... that is all.  Many may claim theirs is the group that is the church, but I just wonder... are they really.  And I asked, is it wrong to wonder.

If you know the statement is true, then it would be a contradiction to wonder.  Either it's true or it's not.  If it's true then denomination name is meaningless, and there is no need to wonder, am I right?

However those outside the RC church dont believe that the pope or other such leaders were selected by the Holy Spirit, or that they are in anyway leaders of God's church on earth. Jesus alone is the head of His church/body, we are ALL parts of His body. 

In fact, you weren't asking anyone by name.  I was just the first to respond.  We are all agreeing here.

Wait a minute...  did I not quote his statement, and ask my question?

Usually around here, that means you are asking the person who made the statement you are asking about.  Does it not? 

Just to clarify... I quoted him and asked him.   ::tippinghat::

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

What I should have said was that YES this is the TRUE standard by which we can measure those bodies, denoms. and religions who claim that they are The Church ...  when we wonder.   Thanks!! 
::tippinghat::

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:18:25
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.

What I should have said was that YES this is the TRUE standard by which we can measure those bodies, denoms. and religions who claim that they are The Church ...  when we wonder.   Thanks!! 
::tippinghat::

Yes. I so love going to meetings where there are believers from loads of different churches. Its Gods family.  ::smile::

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:36:21
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.


Amen to that!  Amen and Amen!
Is it wrong do you think, to question or wonder if some religions or denominations fall under this statement of truth?   

My Lord established one Church only, those that are born and led of the Spirit of God belong to it.
It will recognize Christ as its Head and no one else. 
It will not be religious as Christ came to deliver it from man made religions and let His Church walk in freedom
by His Holy Spirit. Some members can be found in man made religious organization and a lot of them without.

His Church is His body and He is the Head of the body. To give a human example.....
Our natural physical body consists of all different parts, but there is no part of the physical body that
can move on its own unless it is instructed to do so by the brain, the head.

So for the body of Christ (Church) to function properly,  we all as members have to be led by the head.
What religion or denominations are doing is trying to make every one the same (trying to make a pinky
into a thump), which will never work.
We need to seek God to find our place in the body and be obedient as Christ leads us.

Just think if every part of a hand got its direction from the Head, how great a work it can do instead of
wasting our time trying to change each other to be like our part.

We each as individual member of His Body (Church) have to come to a place where we have completely
submitted our will to Christ, when we come to that place we are fit to do the Father's Will.

As long as we are still fighting over which church organization we belong to or which is the right one,
we are merely babes in Christ, that is if we are even born again.

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

It depends upon what they think "have the Holy Spirit" means.  I have heard from some who think that have the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Apostles. So then, in that case I would say, yes, I would suggest they can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

Why would any of that be an issue for you?
Are Muslims filled with the Holy Spirit? No.
Yet the RCC teaches that for Muslims too there is a plan of salvation, so its doesn't matter if one thinks to have the Holy Spirit or not. It is of no consequence.

Well said.  ::applause::

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:38:20

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:36:21
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.


Amen to that!  Amen and Amen!
Is it wrong do you think, to question or wonder if some religions or denominations fall under this statement of truth?   

My Lord established one Church only, those that are born and led of the Spirit of God belong to it.
It will recognize Christ as its Head and no one else. 
It will not be religious as Christ came to deliver it from man made religions and let His Church walk in freedom
by His Holy Spirit. Some members can be found in man made religious organization and a lot of them without.

His Church is His body and He is the Head of the body. To give a human example.....
Our natural physical body consists of all different parts, but there is no part of the physical body that
can move on its own unless it is instructed to do so by the brain, the head.

So for the body of Christ (Church) to function properly,  we all as members have to be led by the head.
What religion or denominations are doing is trying to make every one the same (trying to make a pinky
into a thump), which will never work.
We need to seek God to find our place in the body and be obedient as Christ leads us.

Just think if every part of a hand got its direction from the Head, how great a work it can do instead of
wasting our time trying to change each other to be like our part.

We each as individual member of His Body (Church) have to come to a place where we have completely
submitted our will to Christ, when we come to that place we are fit to do the Father's Will.

As long as we are still fighting over which church organization we belong to or which is the right one,
we are merely babes in Christ, that is if we are even born again.

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:14:18

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

Why would any of that be an issue for you?
Are Muslims filled with the Holy Spirit? No.
Yet the RCC teaches that for Muslims too there is a plan of salvation, so its doesn't matter if one thinks to have the Holy Spirit or not. It is of no consequence.

Do you think that God does not have a plan of salvation for everyone?

And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts 10:34-35)

So Paul, standing in the middle of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. ......... And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. (Acts 17:22-23, 26-27)

What do you say Catholica -- Winsome   Is there anything Christ taught his apostles that any of the apostles  would sit as a pope on an earthly throne and to be called Holly Father?

It says we are to be holy but do you know any one who thinks he is worthy to be called holy let alone Holy Father.  To think one is supreme over the earth?

I wonder why these questions go without answer while you hide amongst other very good responses. Has the cat got your tongue?  The problem is that if you were to be honest about these questions your very identity as a RC would be ashes leaving you in a place that is void with out a church you cling to for your very purpose.

Yet this is the only Place where you may call on Christ to be you only hop e and savior

: winsome  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 04:29:15

: AVZ  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:14:18

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

Why would any of that be an issue for you?
Are Muslims filled with the Holy Spirit? No.
Yet the RCC teaches that for Muslims too there is a plan of salvation, so its doesn't matter if one thinks to have the Holy Spirit or not. It is of no consequence.

Do you think that God does not have a plan of salvation for everyone?

No I don't.
There only is salvation through Christ. That's the only plan available.
Muslims reject Christ, hence there is no plan of salvation for Muslims.

The teaching by the RCC on this matter is a grave error.

: mclees8  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 10:49:18
What do you say Catholica -- Winsome   Is there anything Christ taught his apostles that any of the apostles  would sit as a pope on an earthly throne and to be called Holly Father?

It says we are to be holy but do you know any one who thinks he is worthy to be called holy let alone Holy Father.  To think one is supreme over the earth?

I wonder why these questions go without answer while you hide amongst other very good responses. Has the cat got your tongue?  The problem is that if you were to be honest about these questions your very identity as a RC would be ashes leaving you in a place that is void with out a church you cling to for your very purpose.

Yet this is the only Place where you may call on Christ to be you only hop e and savior

I am no longer responding to your posts concerning this issue.  Everything that needs to be said has been said to you previously.

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

Absolutely, satan is good at offering what people think they want. There are evil powers as well as good ones, that can give the appearance initially of being good.  Satan come like an angel of light, he is the great deceiver.

AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

John 14:6

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 10 v 9

I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.

Either we believe what Jesus said or we dont.

: chosenone  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:25

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

Absolutely, satan is good at offering what people think they want. There are evil powers as well as good ones, that can give the appearance initially of being good.  Satan come like an angel of light, he is the great deceiver.

So they think they have the Holy Spirit but in your estimation, do not. 

You also think that you have the Holy Spirit.  How do you know that you aren't also "deceived by evil powers" "that can give the appearance initially of being good"?

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

His plan for salvation is found ONLY in Christ.  That is what He Himself says.  Entering His church, and becoming part of the Body of Christ only comes after salvation.

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:08:24

: chosenone  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:25

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

Absolutely, satan is good at offering what people think they want. There are evil powers as well as good ones, that can give the appearance initially of being good.  Satan come like an angel of light, he is the great deceiver.

So they think they have the Holy Spirit but in your estimation, do not. 

You also think that you have the Holy Spirit.  How do you know that you aren't also "deceived by evil powers" "that can give the appearance initially of being good"?

Discernment.
We can see by what others believe and how they act and how their group operates as to whether they are following God or not. With many sects and cults and other faiths its as clear as day.

: doorknocker  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:38:20

: kensington  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 16:36:21
God has only one church. It does not have a title as roman catholic or anglican, baptist, pentecostal,
church of christ, or any other name.
His Church are those that are born and led by the Spirit of God. Christ is the Head of the Church. It is the Holy Spirit that appoints overseers  (Acts 20 , 28)
It is Christ who gives gifts to His Church (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Ephesians 4, 11-12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
His authority is by the Spirit not by human institutions with different labels.
It is Christ who anoints His servants to have authority and power in His Church.


Amen to that!  Amen and Amen!
Is it wrong do you think, to question or wonder if some religions or denominations fall under this statement of truth?   

My Lord established one Church only, those that are born and led of the Spirit of God belong to it.
It will recognize Christ as its Head and no one else. 
It will not be religious as Christ came to deliver it from man made religions and let His Church walk in freedom
by His Holy Spirit. Some members can be found in man made religious organization and a lot of them without.

His Church is His body and He is the Head of the body. To give a human example.....
Our natural physical body consists of all different parts, but there is no part of the physical body that
can move on its own unless it is instructed to do so by the brain, the head.

So for the body of Christ (Church) to function properly,  we all as members have to be led by the head.
What religion or denominations are doing is trying to make every one the same (trying to make a pinky
into a thump), which will never work.
We need to seek God to find our place in the body and be obedient as Christ leads us.

Just think if every part of a hand got its direction from the Head, how great a work it can do instead of
wasting our time trying to change each other to be like our part.

We each as individual member of His Body (Church) have to come to a place where we have completely
submitted our will to Christ, when we come to that place we are fit to do the Father's Will.

As long as we are still fighting over which church organization we belong to or which is the right one,
we are merely babes in Christ, that is if we are even born again.

Amen to that!!

: chosenone  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:11:40

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:08:24

: chosenone  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:25

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 18:05:54

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:08:36

: Catholica  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:06:38

: chosenone  Tue Apr 21, 2015 - 17:03:13
ANy one church/denomination that claims they its only though their church that you can be saved, or that theirs is the  only 'true' church, is both entirely unbiblical, and also completely deceived. I dont think that God would be at all happy with any church/organisation that tried to exclude millions of His precious children, and tell them they arent saved.  ::eek::

But if they are spirit-filled, then no matter what their church teaches, they are Christian, right?  So a spirit-filled "Mormon" is really just another brethren, and it is wrong for you to tell them that they are deceived, especially since they are infilled by the Holy Spirit.

Who says they are Holy Spirit filled?

They will be the first to tell you that they are.

Would you suggest that someone can think they have the Holy Spirit but not actually have Him?

Absolutely, satan is good at offering what people think they want. There are evil powers as well as good ones, that can give the appearance initially of being good.  Satan come like an angel of light, he is the great deceiver.

So they think they have the Holy Spirit but in your estimation, do not. 

You also think that you have the Holy Spirit.  How do you know that you aren't also "deceived by evil powers" "that can give the appearance initially of being good"?

Discernment.
We can see by what others believe and how they act and how their group operates as to whether they are following God or not. With many sects and cults and other faiths its as clear as day.

The Mormons will also claim discernment.  Likely that is what they mean by that "burning in their belly".

If one doesn't know first with absolute certitude that they have the Holy Spirit, then they can't reliably know that other people's beliefs are false.  I'm sure that that Mormon person who also believes that he has the Holy Spirit (just as you do) would say the exact same thing about your group and beliefs.

In essence, you are not unlike the Mormon in this discernment.  You both have discerned that you have the Holy Spirit and you both believe the other is deceived.

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:08:40

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

His plan for salvation is found ONLY in Christ.  That is what He Himself says.  Entering His church, and becoming part of the Body of Christ only comes after salvation.

That's what I am saying.  And this plan also includes people who are currently believing in the religion of Islam. 

For AVZ and anyone who thinks that the Catholic Church teaches that Muslims can be saved through Islam, this link is provided.

http://www.catholicfidelity.com/the-catechism-on-islam-by-james-akin/ (http://www.catholicfidelity.com/the-catechism-on-islam-by-james-akin/)

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:47:37

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:08:40

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

His plan for salvation is found ONLY in Christ.  That is what He Himself says.  Entering His church, and becoming part of the Body of Christ only comes after salvation.

That's what I am saying.  And this plan also includes people who are currently believing in the religion of Islam. 

For AVZ and anyone who thinks that the Catholic Church teaches that Muslims can be saved through Islam, this link is provided.

http://www.catholicfidelity.com/the-catechism-on-islam-by-james-akin/ (http://www.catholicfidelity.com/the-catechism-on-islam-by-james-akin/)

It is?? Sure sounded like you were saying entering a specific church is what will save them...if I misunderstand I apologize

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:54:50


It is?? Sure sounded like you were saying entering a specific church is what will save them...if I misunderstand I apologize

The biggest mistake in that Catechism is to think the Muslim god is the same God as that of the Christians. It is not so. Islam's god is a pagan moon god. That is the reason for the symbol of their faith being the crescent moon and star. 
Muslims face east to bow to the direction of Mecca and the K'abah where the physical representative of their pagan moon god is housed. A black stone, a meteorite that fell from space and now is contained in a box in the K'abah. They pray in this direction five times a day.

Islams god is not our God.

God's grace is open to all who would seek his truth. The first thing for a Muslim to do to acquire salvation is to renounce their pagan moon God and accept the one true God and Christ in order to be saved and enter the church of Christ, which is the entirety of those faithful to the truth of God in Jesus and the Gospel and message of the cross.

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:54:50

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:47:37

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:08:40

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

His plan for salvation is found ONLY in Christ.  That is what He Himself says.  Entering His church, and becoming part of the Body of Christ only comes after salvation.

That's what I am saying.  And this plan also includes people who are currently believing in the religion of Islam. 

For AVZ and anyone who thinks that the Catholic Church teaches that Muslims can be saved through Islam, this link is provided.

http://www.catholicfidelity.com/the-catechism-on-islam-by-james-akin/ (http://www.catholicfidelity.com/the-catechism-on-islam-by-james-akin/)

It is?? Sure sounded like you were saying entering a specific church is what will save them...if I misunderstand I apologize

The sacraments are available to all who would approach them, and they are the entrance into the body of Christ, which is also called "the Church".  All who have come to the sacrament of baptism, whether offered by a non-Catholic or a Catholic, have entered into the body of Christ and at that moment were in Christ and may remain so to this day.

I believe that in the Catholic Church subsists the fullness of Christ's salvific plan, but that others who have been baptized are also members of the body of Christ.

This article might clarify things, especially what the word "subsists" entails, which is a word that is not common in every day use.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm (https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm)

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:10:08

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:54:50


It is?? Sure sounded like you were saying entering a specific church is what will save them...if I misunderstand I apologize

The biggest mistake in that Catechism is to think the Muslim god is the same God as that of the Christians. It is not so. Islam's god is a pagan moon god. That is the reason for the symbol of their faith being the crescent moon and star. 
Muslims face east to bow to the direction of Mecca and the K'abah where the physical representative of their pagan moon god is housed. A black stone, a meteorite that fell from space and now is contained in a box in the K'abah. They pray in this direction five times a day.

Islams god is not our God.

God's grace is open to all who would seek his truth. The first thing for a Muslim to do to acquire salvation is to renounce their pagan moon God and accept the one true God and Christ in order to be saved and enter the church of Christ, which is the entirety of those faithful to the truth of God in Jesus and the Gospel and message of the cross.

There is only one God, and Islam's idea of god, while deficient, does share some attributes with God, which is what the Catechism is saying.  You would know that that is what the Catholic Church teaches if you read the link I provided.

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:20:58

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:10:08

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:54:50


It is?? Sure sounded like you were saying entering a specific church is what will save them...if I misunderstand I apologize

The biggest mistake in that Catechism is to think the Muslim god is the same God as that of the Christians. It is not so. Islam's god is a pagan moon god. That is the reason for the symbol of their faith being the crescent moon and star. 
Muslims face east to bow to the direction of Mecca and the K'abah where the physical representative of their pagan moon god is housed. A black stone, a meteorite that fell from space and now is contained in a box in the K'abah. They pray in this direction five times a day.

Islams god is not our God.

God's grace is open to all who would seek his truth. The first thing for a Muslim to do to acquire salvation is to renounce their pagan moon God and accept the one true God and Christ in order to be saved and enter the church of Christ, which is the entirety of those faithful to the truth of God in Jesus and the Gospel and message of the cross.

There is only one God, and Islam's idea of god, while deficient, does share some attributes with God, which is what the Catechism is saying.  You would know that that is what the Catholic Church teaches if you read the link I provided.

I think what you fail to realize is that I did read what the Roman Catholic church catechism said about Islam and its moon god.

And the RCC is wrong.

That is what I'm saying. The Islamic god is a pagan moon god.
So you see, while there is only one God, the god of the Muslims is not him.

It therefore shares no attributes with or to the Christian God. 

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:34:28

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:20:58

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:10:08

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:54:50


It is?? Sure sounded like you were saying entering a specific church is what will save them...if I misunderstand I apologize

The biggest mistake in that Catechism is to think the Muslim god is the same God as that of the Christians. It is not so. Islam's god is a pagan moon god. That is the reason for the symbol of their faith being the crescent moon and star. 
Muslims face east to bow to the direction of Mecca and the K'abah where the physical representative of their pagan moon god is housed. A black stone, a meteorite that fell from space and now is contained in a box in the K'abah. They pray in this direction five times a day.

Islams god is not our God.

God's grace is open to all who would seek his truth. The first thing for a Muslim to do to acquire salvation is to renounce their pagan moon God and accept the one true God and Christ in order to be saved and enter the church of Christ, which is the entirety of those faithful to the truth of God in Jesus and the Gospel and message of the cross.

There is only one God, and Islam's idea of god, while deficient, does share some attributes with God, which is what the Catechism is saying.  You would know that that is what the Catholic Church teaches if you read the link I provided.

I think what you fail to realize is that I did read what the Roman Catholic church catechism said about Islam and its moon god.

And the RCC is wrong.

That is what I'm saying. The Islamic god is a pagan moon god.
So you see, while there is only one God, the god of the Muslims is not him.

It therefore shares no attributes with or to the Christian God.

But you didn't read the article that I sent, nor did you read the original sources that the Catechism entry was pulled from.

And in fact "Allah", their concept of God, is one of a merciful and just God, and in that sense, does share some attributes with God.  Their concept of "Allah" is that God is one; the Trinitarian God is also one.

Try reading the article I posted, it will help you to not make false statements.

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:18:23
The sacraments are available to all who would approach them, and they are the entrance into the body of Christ, which is also called "the Church".  All who have come to the sacrament of baptism, whether offered by a non-Catholic or a Catholic, have entered into the body of Christ and at that moment were in Christ and may remain so to this day.

Agreed.

I believe that in the Catholic Church subsists the fullness of Christ's salvific plan, but that others who have been baptized are also members of the body of Christ.

No to the first part of that sentence, yes to the second part.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm (https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm)

The very first paragraph is incorrect.  So the rest that follows is contaminated by it.

Eph 2:19  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
Eph 2:20  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
Eph 2:21  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
Eph 2:22  in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

1Co_3:11  For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


It is that entire concept of there being a successor to Peter that is in error.  That concept is wholly apart from anything presented in the NT.

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:39:43

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:34:28

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:20:58

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:10:08

: MeMyself  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:54:50


It is?? Sure sounded like you were saying entering a specific church is what will save them...if I misunderstand I apologize

The biggest mistake in that Catechism is to think the Muslim god is the same God as that of the Christians. It is not so. Islam's god is a pagan moon god. That is the reason for the symbol of their faith being the crescent moon and star. 
Muslims face east to bow to the direction of Mecca and the K'abah where the physical representative of their pagan moon god is housed. A black stone, a meteorite that fell from space and now is contained in a box in the K'abah. They pray in this direction five times a day.

Islams god is not our God.

God's grace is open to all who would seek his truth. The first thing for a Muslim to do to acquire salvation is to renounce their pagan moon God and accept the one true God and Christ in order to be saved and enter the church of Christ, which is the entirety of those faithful to the truth of God in Jesus and the Gospel and message of the cross.

There is only one God, and Islam's idea of god, while deficient, does share some attributes with God, which is what the Catechism is saying.  You would know that that is what the Catholic Church teaches if you read the link I provided.

I think what you fail to realize is that I did read what the Roman Catholic church catechism said about Islam and its moon god.

And the RCC is wrong.

That is what I'm saying. The Islamic god is a pagan moon god.
So you see, while there is only one God, the god of the Muslims is not him.

It therefore shares no attributes with or to the Christian God.

But you didn't read the article that I sent, nor did you read the original sources that the Catechism entry was pulled from.

And in fact "Allah", their concept of God, is one of a merciful and just God, and in that sense, does share some attributes with God.  Their concept of "Allah" is that God is one; the Trinitarian God is also one.

Try reading the article I posted, it will help you to not make false statements.

I forgive you.

I cannot make it anymore clear. It is a tragedy.

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:02:57

: mclees8  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 10:49:18
What do you say Catholica -- Winsome   Is there anything Christ taught his apostles that any of the apostles  would sit as a pope on an earthly throne and to be called Holly Father?

It says we are to be holy but do you know any one who thinks he is worthy to be called holy let alone Holy Father.  To think one is supreme over the earth?

I wonder why these questions go without answer while you hide amongst other very good responses. Has the cat got your tongue?  The problem is that if you were to be honest about these questions your very identity as a RC would be ashes leaving you in a place that is void with out a church you cling to for your very purpose.

Yet this is the only Place where you may call on Christ to be you only hop e and savior

I am no longer responding to your posts concerning this issue.  Everything that needs to be said has been said to you previously.

What ever you think you answered they were not these.  This is just a dodge. You are scared to answer them because what I said it true. You have no counter for them.

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

Is this what John Paul was doing when he kissed the Koran . Or was it a sign for peaceful coexistence for the sake of world peace. This is about peaceful diplomatic relations, not converting them to Christ.

: mclees8  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 13:32:18

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

Is this what John Paul was doing when he kissed the Koran . Or was it a sign for peaceful coexistence for the sake of world peace. This is about peaceful diplomatic relations, not converting them to Christ.

For the first time .. Quran recitation at the Vatican (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUgvzj8RrGA#)

One doesn't convert Muslims by honoring their sacred book and allowing them to recite from that on Vatican grounds. It may have began with pope John Paul but it didn't end there.



(http://www.crisismagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/john_paul_ii_kisses_koran-620x320.jpg)

The Muslim Times = pope Benedict and the koran (http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2013/03/europe-and-australia/europe/the-popes-and-islam-through-pictures/attachment/pope-and-the-holy-quran-2)

: mclees8  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 13:32:18
  This is about peaceful diplomatic relations, not converting them to Christ.

I'd agree with you. What appears as a push for ecumenism could very well be a diplomatic concession since Vatican City is the smallest nation in the world. It's dictator, because the pope has primacy as the head of the church, heads the most populace country on earth given the number of Roman Catholics who swear fealty to the pope and church.

I'd agree it is politics not conversion at the heart of this. He meets with heads of state and leaders of countries because he's in the position to as both dictator and priest of Vatican City and the RCC.

 Islam was founded in the early 7^th century

The star and crescent symbol only became associated with Islam in the mid-20th century, following its use in the national flags of various successor states of the Ottoman Empire. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism, such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the American Nation of Islam (1973). The "Red Crescent" emblem was adopted by volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as early as 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War; it was officially adopted in 1929.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam))

The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used to represent Islam. The symbol is not Muslim in origin, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam, and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole.
(http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html (http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html))

: winsome  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:09:46
Islam was founded in the early 7^th century

The star and crescent symbol only became associated with Islam in the mid-20th century, following its use in the national flags of various successor states of the Ottoman Empire. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism, such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the American Nation of Islam (1973). The "Red Crescent" emblem was adopted by volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as early as 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War; it was officially adopted in 1929.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam))

The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used to represent Islam. The symbol is not Muslim in origin, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam, and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole.
(http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html (http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html))

Yes, well, you might want to research Hilal as pertains to Islam.   The Muslim "holy" month of Ramadan starts at the sighting of a new crescent moon. Read more about the allah moon god here. (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/allah-moon-god.html)Source:Billion Bibles.org

Hilal, moon cycles, is how Islamists determine the start and finish of their months. In fact the moon is of such importance that there is an Al Hilal Bank (http://www.alhilalbank.kz/en/ibank/)of Arab origin.



Did you imagine I said the Muslims created the crescent moon symbol so as to use it to represent their moon god faith? Not at all. As is evident if one reads my post.

Do you imagine the Christians invented the cross to wear as a remembrance of Christ and his sacrifice for us? Of course not.

The crescent moon was visible in the sky in the beginning. Muslims simply adopted it as a symbol of remembrance for their moon god.

Do the research. You'll find it fascinating I think. ::smile::

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

: winsome  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:09:46
Islam was founded in the early 7^th century

The star and crescent symbol only became associated with Islam in the mid-20th century, following its use in the national flags of various successor states of the Ottoman Empire. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism, such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the American Nation of Islam (1973). The "Red Crescent" emblem was adopted by volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as early as 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War; it was officially adopted in 1929.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam))

The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used to represent Islam. The symbol is not Muslim in origin, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam, and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole.
(http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html (http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html))

Yes, well, you might want to research Hilal as pertains to Islam.   The Muslim "holy" month of Ramadan starts at the sighting of a new crescent moon. Read more about the allah moon god here. (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/allah-moon-god.html)Source:Billion Bibles.org

The date of Easter is also determined by the moon.  Judaism's months also went by the moon, and their calendar to this day is based on moon cycles. 

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

: winsome  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:09:46
Islam was founded in the early 7^th century

The star and crescent symbol only became associated with Islam in the mid-20th century, following its use in the national flags of various successor states of the Ottoman Empire. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism, such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the American Nation of Islam (1973). The "Red Crescent" emblem was adopted by volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as early as 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War; it was officially adopted in 1929.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam))

The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used to represent Islam. The symbol is not Muslim in origin, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam, and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole.
(http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html (http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html))

Yes, well, you might want to research Hilal as pertains to Islam.   The Muslim "holy" month of Ramadan starts at the sighting of a new crescent moon. Read more about the allah moon god here. (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/allah-moon-god.html)Source:Billion Bibles.org

The date of Easter is also determined by the moon.  Judaism's months also went by the moon, and their calendar to this day is based on moon cycles.

And?

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

: winsome  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:09:46
Islam was founded in the early 7^th century

The star and crescent symbol only became associated with Islam in the mid-20th century, following its use in the national flags of various successor states of the Ottoman Empire. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism, such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the American Nation of Islam (1973). The "Red Crescent" emblem was adopted by volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as early as 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War; it was officially adopted in 1929.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam))

The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used to represent Islam. The symbol is not Muslim in origin, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam, and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole.
(http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html (http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html))

Yes, well, you might want to research Hilal as pertains to Islam.   The Muslim "holy" month of Ramadan starts at the sighting of a new crescent moon. Read more about the allah moon god here. (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/allah-moon-god.html)Source:Billion Bibles.org

The date of Easter is also determined by the moon.  Judaism's months also went by the moon, and their calendar to this day is based on moon cycles.

So the pagan feast of easter is set by the moon and your point being?

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:33:00

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

: winsome  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:09:46
Islam was founded in the early 7^th century

The star and crescent symbol only became associated with Islam in the mid-20th century, following its use in the national flags of various successor states of the Ottoman Empire. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism, such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the American Nation of Islam (1973). The "Red Crescent" emblem was adopted by volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as early as 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War; it was officially adopted in 1929.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam))

The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used to represent Islam. The symbol is not Muslim in origin, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam, and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole.
(http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html (http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html))

Yes, well, you might want to research Hilal as pertains to Islam.   The Muslim "holy" month of Ramadan starts at the sighting of a new crescent moon. Read more about the allah moon god here. (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/allah-moon-god.html)Source:Billion Bibles.org

The date of Easter is also determined by the moon.  Judaism's months also went by the moon, and their calendar to this day is based on moon cycles.

And?

And so why would we criticize Islam for using the moon to mark their holy month?

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 19:01:27

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:33:00

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

: Buster D Body Crab  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

: winsome  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:09:46
Islam was founded in the early 7^th century

The star and crescent symbol only became associated with Islam in the mid-20th century, following its use in the national flags of various successor states of the Ottoman Empire. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism, such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the American Nation of Islam (1973). The "Red Crescent" emblem was adopted by volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as early as 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War; it was officially adopted in 1929.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam))

The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used to represent Islam. The symbol is not Muslim in origin, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam, and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole.
(http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html (http://www.religious-symbols.net/islam-symbols.html))

Yes, well, you might want to research Hilal as pertains to Islam.   The Muslim "holy" month of Ramadan starts at the sighting of a new crescent moon. Read more about the allah moon god here. (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/allah-moon-god.html)Source:Billion Bibles.org

The date of Easter is also determined by the moon.  Judaism's months also went by the moon, and their calendar to this day is based on moon cycles.

And?

And so why would we criticize Islam for using the moon to mark their holy month?

::doh::

Why isn't the Pope kissing the Book of Mormon? 

: kensington  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 22:48:25
Why isn't the Pope kissing the Book of Mormon?

::smile::

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

I just wonder what the Pope was thinking...

Obviously there is only one book in the whole world that would be worth kissing (if that's what you want), and that would be the Bible.
So the Pope meets up with the Shiite Imam of Khadum Mosque, the Sunni President of the council that operates the Iraqi Islamic Bank, and a member of the Iraqi Ministry of Religion.
During the visit they hand him a book...so the Pope must have been thinking: "Hey, a Bible...lets kiss it"?

Now, the RCC has bombarded itself as the only true church, protected from error.
And here we have the leader of this church...apparently the representative of Christ on earth, kissing the Koran.
The book that teaches the total rejection of Christ, being kissed by the representative of Christ.

The only logical and intelligent conclusion is that the Pope knew he was kissing a Koran, and with that he exposes the stance of the RCC towards Islam, which is one of total embrace.
And that is defined in the theory of the RCC that there is a plan of salvation for Muslims.

It is not the way you try to explain above.
What you are trying to do is bring up absurd arguments to defend something that cannot be defended, but since the RCC is protected from error...what else can you do?
You cannot say that the Pope made a theological mistake now, can you?
The acceptance of a religion that hates and rejects Christianity as a potential avenue to reach salvation through what it rejects is absurd.

There is only one plan to salvation, and that leads through Christ.
But if you insist that there are other plans, well, there is another plan: the plan to hell.

So here is the thing.
You either embrace Christ, and become part of the plan of salvation.
Or you do not embrace Christ and then you become part of the plan to hell.

Which plan do you think Muslims belong to?

It is impossible for any pope not to know they're holding the Muslims holy book in their hands when it is handed to them. Kissing it shows respect for the book.

A book that informs the pope, one of the most highly educated religious leaders on earth, that Jesus Christ, whom Islam calls Isa, is not the son of God because allah has no son. But that he is a mere prophet.

Rather than trying to show respect for a faith who's book instructs how to abuse small girls in readiness for marriage, how to kill infidels and why, he should show the love of Christ and seek to lead them to the truth of Christ. Not welcome them to say their prayers in the Vatican that will ultimately precede their arrival in Hell. While the terrorists aligned with their faith make that call aloud before sending Christians to God after their heads are lopped off.

How do people coexist with a religion that wants to kill or convert everyone who is not muslim? A leader of a church and nation should set an example. Not fall into line behind terrorists who would kill him if given half the chance. And in fact ISIS has promised they'll enter Rome and do just that to Francis.

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 04:00:17

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:06:51
AVZ, you seemed confused about the difference between "salvation" and a "plan for salvation".

Let's say that I have a plan for building a house.  And that plan involves going through the normal house-building "stuff".  The plan doesn't become a house until I go through all those house-building steps.

So too does God have a plan for Muslims.  That plan involves giving them the grace they need to repent and enter the Church, first and foremost.  Does that mean that God's plan is to save Muslims through Islam?  No, his plan is to save Muslims through the Church he established.

That is a plan for salvation.

I just wonder what the Pope was thinking...

Obviously there is only one book in the whole world that would be worth kissing (if that's what you want), and that would be the Bible.
So the Pope meets up with the Shiite Imam of Khadum Mosque, the Sunni President of the council that operates the Iraqi Islamic Bank, and a member of the Iraqi Ministry of Religion.
During the visit they hand him a book...so the Pope must have been thinking: "Hey, a Bible...lets kiss it"?

Now, the RCC has bombarded itself as the only true church, protected from error.
And here we have the leader of this church...apparently the representative of Christ on earth, kissing the Koran.
The book that teaches the total rejection of Christ, being kissed by the representative of Christ.

The only logical and intelligent conclusion is that the Pope knew he was kissing a Koran, and with that he exposes the stance of the RCC towards Islam, which is one of total embrace.
And that is defined in the theory of the RCC that there is a plan of salvation for Muslims.

It is not the way you try to explain above.
What you are trying to do is bring up absurd arguments to defend something that cannot be defended, but since the RCC is protected from error...what else can you do?
You cannot say that the Pope made a theological mistake now, can you?
The acceptance of a religion that hates and rejects Christianity as a potential avenue to reach salvation through what it rejects is absurd.

There is only one plan to salvation, and that leads through Christ.
But if you insist that there are other plans, well, there is another plan: the plan to hell.

So here is the thing.
You either embrace Christ, and become part of the plan of salvation.
Or you do not embrace Christ and then you become part of the plan to hell.

Which plan do you think Muslims belong to?

It is clear that the papacy is centered in the world. It desires religious unity with all faiths  It professes Christ but its true heart is not of Christ but he world. It says they know Christ is coming again but does not recognizes the command to not love the world. Therefore it is a harlot . It is a powerful religious and political order in the world whose vision is to be as god upon the earth. She sleeps in Babylon therefore she shall be judged with Babylon 

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 04:00:17
There is only one plan to salvation, and that leads through Christ.
But if you insist that there are other plans, well, there is another plan: the plan to hell.

So here is the thing.
You either embrace Christ, and become part of the plan of salvation.
Or you do not embrace Christ and then you become part of the plan to hell.

Which plan do you think Muslims belong to?

There is no plan to hell.  God does not will that any go to hell. That's not to say that everyone will go to heaven.  Suredly some will go to hell.  But the plan for them was to go to heaven.

AVZ, I don't know if there was a time in your life where before that point you were, say, "not saved" or "not in Christ" or what not.   If you were not, there were some who are.  Let's call that group "unbelievers".   

What is God's plan for unbelievers?  Is his plan to save them and bring them to heaven, or is his plan to send them to hell?  If I were to ask you, which plan are unbelievers on, would you say "the plan for hell"?  If so then how do some believers then later in life get on "the plan for heaven"?

There is no plan for hell.  There are simply those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ.  Muslims are not in Christ.  God's plan for them is to bring them into Christ.  Just like his plan is for all unbelievers.

In your zeal against the Catholic Church it seems that you don't want to distinguish between a "path" and a "plan".  God's plan for Muslims is to bring them to heaven through Jesus Christ.  The path that Muslims are on is more than likely the path that leads to hell.  There is a difference between a plan, and a path.

I don't know how to make this any more plain to you.  If you keep confusing the too and keep up this diatribe against the Catholic Church with this as one of your soapboxes, then plainly I don't know of any way that I can help you further.  It will be fruitless for me to respond to this silly claim anymore if you show no sign of trying to understand.

: Catholica  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:03:25

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 04:00:17
There is only one plan to salvation, and that leads through Christ.
But if you insist that there are other plans, well, there is another plan: the plan to hell.

So here is the thing.
You either embrace Christ, and become part of the plan of salvation.
Or you do not embrace Christ and then you become part of the plan to hell.

Which plan do you think Muslims belong to?

There is no plan to hell.  God does not will that any go to hell. That's not to say that everyone will go to heaven.  Suredly some will go to hell.  But the plan for them was to go to heaven.

AVZ, I don't know if there was a time in your life where before that point you were, say, "not saved" or "not in Christ" or what not.   If you were not, there were some who are.  Let's call that group "unbelievers".   

What is God's plan for unbelievers?  Is his plan to save them and bring them to heaven, or is his plan to send them to hell?  If I were to ask you, which plan are unbelievers on, would you say "the plan for hell"?  If so then how do some believers then later in life get on "the plan for heaven"?

There is no plan for hell.  There are simply those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ.  Muslims are not in Christ.  God's plan for them is to bring them into Christ.  Just like his plan is for all unbelievers.

In your zeal against the Catholic Church it seems that you don't want to distinguish between a "path" and a "plan".  God's plan for Muslims is to bring them to heaven through Jesus Christ.  The path that Muslims are on is more than likely the path that leads to hell.  There is a difference between a plan, and a path.

I don't know how to make this any more plain to you.  If you keep confusing the too and keep up this diatribe against the Catholic Church with this as one of your soapboxes, then plainly I don't know of any way that I can help you further.  It will be fruitless for me to respond to this silly claim anymore if you show no sign of trying to understand.

The above claims you make are so not true, in fact it is right opposite of what the RCCC teaches.
Prior to the part where the RCCC claims that there is a plan of salvation for Muslims, it also states that that is because in the eyes of the RCC Muslims and Christians "adore" the same God.

Your above argument is rubbish, because if the RCC really meant that there was a plan of salvation for everybody, she would state in the RCCC "there is a plan of salvation for every non-Christian".
But the RCC doesn't do that, she specifically lifts out Islam and gives the reason why: they believe in the same God as Catholics do.

That is a gross misinterpretation of scripture.
First of all Muslims do NOT believe in the same God, and secondly if there is one religion totally opposed and openly anti-Christian...it is Islam.
The RCC is bedding with the enemy.

On the other hand, no such statement is taken up for, for example Protestants.
If there would be one group that would be far more close, if not closest to Catholicism, then it would be Protestantism.
Yet the RCC has the audacity to proclaim the Protestants anathema because they do not place themselves under authority of the Pope....yet in the same breath allow Muslims to partake in a plan of salvation.


When the Pope enters a room Catholics kiss his ring.
Why do they do that?
According to the RCC the ring is a symbol of authority and kissing it acknowledges the divine appointment of the bearer.
And here we have a Pope kissing the Koran.

The Catholics scream murder when Protestants remove a few books from the Bible...but kiss the Koran.

Your problem is that since you have declared your church to be protected from error, you have a come up with the most absurd argumentation to explain the absurd statement of salvation for Muslims, and the absurd action by the Pope to kiss a Koran.
The most reasonable and logical argument would of course be: Oops we were wrong and the Pope was incorrect.

Unfortunately, you can't. You have declared yourself to be without error and admitting once would mean twice or more would also be possible.
And that would obviously put the RCC on a downward slope, which of course is unacceptable.

What really strikes me the most in all this is that Catholics can't even be bothered about it.
Nobody asks questions, nobody cares, even though the inclusion of Islam in salvation is a clear violation of the Gospel.
All that is important is to get the church and the Pope off the hook.
Catholics just look at the Vatican, who comes with some shadowy explanation for it all, and they parrot away what they just have been told the explanation is.

One last time: There is only one plan of salvation and that plan leads through Christ.
Any plan of salvation that does not lead through Christ is a man made fabrication and leads to hell.

If it is God's plan for them is to go to heaven, then they would because nobody can thwart God's plans.
God does not want anyone to go to hell, yet God did create hell for those who would reject Christ. And that's what Muslims do.

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:39:25

: Catholica  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:03:25

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 04:00:17
There is only one plan to salvation, and that leads through Christ.
But if you insist that there are other plans, well, there is another plan: the plan to hell.

So here is the thing.
You either embrace Christ, and become part of the plan of salvation.
Or you do not embrace Christ and then you become part of the plan to hell.

Which plan do you think Muslims belong to?

There is no plan to hell.  God does not will that any go to hell. That's not to say that everyone will go to heaven.  Suredly some will go to hell.  But the plan for them was to go to heaven.

AVZ, I don't know if there was a time in your life where before that point you were, say, "not saved" or "not in Christ" or what not.   If you were not, there were some who are.  Let's call that group "unbelievers".   

What is God's plan for unbelievers?  Is his plan to save them and bring them to heaven, or is his plan to send them to hell?  If I were to ask you, which plan are unbelievers on, would you say "the plan for hell"?  If so then how do some believers then later in life get on "the plan for heaven"?

There is no plan for hell.  There are simply those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ.  Muslims are not in Christ.  God's plan for them is to bring them into Christ.  Just like his plan is for all unbelievers.

In your zeal against the Catholic Church it seems that you don't want to distinguish between a "path" and a "plan".  God's plan for Muslims is to bring them to heaven through Jesus Christ.  The path that Muslims are on is more than likely the path that leads to hell.  There is a difference between a plan, and a path.

I don't know how to make this any more plain to you.  If you keep confusing the too and keep up this diatribe against the Catholic Church with this as one of your soapboxes, then plainly I don't know of any way that I can help you further.  It will be fruitless for me to respond to this silly claim anymore if you show no sign of trying to understand.

The above claims you make are so not true, in fact it is right opposite of what the RCCC teaches.
Prior to the part where the RCCC claims that there is a plan of salvation for Muslims, it also states that that is because in the eyes of the RCC Muslims and Christians "adore" the same God.

Your above argument is rubbish, because if the RCC really meant that there was a plan of salvation for everybody, she would state in the RCCC "there is a plan of salvation for every non-Christian".
But the RCC doesn't do that, she specifically lifts out Islam and gives the reason why: they believe in the same God as Catholics do.

That is a gross misinterpretation of scripture.
First of all Muslims do NOT believe in the same God, and secondly if there is one religion totally opposed and openly anti-Christian...it is Islam.
The RCC is bedding with the enemy.

On the other hand, no such statement is taken up for, for example Protestants.
If there would be one group that would be far more close, if not closest to Catholicism, then it would be Protestantism.
Yet the RCC has the audacity to proclaim the Protestants anathema because they do not place themselves under authority of the Pope....yet in the same breath allow Muslims to partake in a plan of salvation.


When the Pope enters a room Catholics kiss his ring.
Why do they do that?
According to the RCC the ring is a symbol of authority and kissing it acknowledges the divine appointment of the bearer.
And here we have a Pope kissing the Koran.

The Catholics scream murder when Protestants remove a few books from the Bible...but kiss the Koran.

Your problem is that since you have declared your church to be protected from error, you have a come up with the most absurd argumentation to explain the absurd statement of salvation for Muslims, and the absurd action by the Pope to kiss a Koran.
The most reasonable and logical argument would of course be: Oops we were wrong and the Pope was incorrect.

Unfortunately, you can't. You have declared yourself to be without error and admitting once would mean twice or more would also be possible.
And that would obviously put the RCC on a downward slope, which of course is unacceptable.

What really strikes me the most in all this is that Catholics can't even be bothered about it.
Nobody asks questions, nobody cares, even though the inclusion of Islam in salvation is a clear violation of the Gospel.
All that is important is to get the church and the Pope off the hook.
Catholics just look at the Vatican, who comes with some shadowy explanation for it all, and they parrot away what they just have been told the explanation is.

One last time: There is only one plan of salvation and that plan leads through Christ.
Any plan of salvation that does not lead through Christ is a man made fabrication and leads to hell.

If it is God's plan for them is to go to heaven, then they would because nobody can thwart God's plans.
God does not want anyone to go to hell, yet God did create hell for those who would reject Christ. And that's what Muslims do.

That popes do scandalous things from time to time don't surprise us.  The Pope kissing the Koran, if it was a Koran (and nobody knows for sure if it was; it could have been an Arabic Bible) is a scandalous thing and was sinful.  Listening to someone read (or sing) the Koran, when taken in context, is not necessarily a scandalous thing. 

However all the sins of the popes have not caused the Catholic Church to adopt the teachings of the Koran, nor has it changed the practice of the Catholic Church which still prays for those who don't believe in Jesus on Good Friday (and more often still in the life of the Church), praying for their conversion.  And if one actually takes the time to understand the Catholic Church's teaching with regard to Islam in context you would know that the Catholic Church in no way is uniting itself with Islam or desires anything less than the conversion of Muslims.

The fact that people have to dig up an ancient picture of one pope kissing a koran says more about how the Catholic Church IS NOT accepting Islam than saying that it does.  Why, there should be a multitude of pictures of all kinds of different popes kissing all sorts of Korans if this were really an issue.

Its as stupid as saying that because the Catholic Church shut Galileo down, then the Catholic Church is anti-science.  If the Catholic Church was anti-science, they wouldn't have to travel back 400+ years for an example.  And likewise there would be a lot more Koran kissing pictures out there.

Peter caused scandal when he refused to eat with Gentiles when the Jews were around.  If someone had taken a picture of it, then would someone be right in saying that the early Christian Church was against uniting with the Gentiles?  No, of course they wouldn't.

There are plenty of people in the Catholic Church who, when seeing this evidence of the Pope kissing the Koran, if that is what it was, point out that it was a scandalous and immoral sin.

We have no qualms or problems knowing that the pope is not impeccable, that is, that the pope is capable of making mistakes in judgement, and capable of sinning.  If this was a Koran that was being kissed, then that is wrong.  I'm sure that if the elderly, close to alzheimer's pope at that time had realized that he kissed a Koran, he brought it to confession and was forgiven by God who remembers sin no more.

If only other Christians would acknowledge that as humans, all people make mistakes and all people commit sins, and that Catholics believe this about the pope, and how a person's sins should be forgiven by others in the body, then we wouldn't be ruminating on this isolated episode so many years later. 

And that might even allow them to actually be capable of using reason when looking at the Church's teachings, taking them all as a whole rather than as individual parts.  Just think, on one hand we are accused of saying that only Catholics can be saved, and on the other hand we are accused of suggesting that Muslims who are not Catholic can be saved as Muslims.  Together, the two don't make sense.  But if you see things the way the Church sees them, you understand the truth behind both statements and then you understand how the Church understands salvation and questions go away.

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:39:25
Prior to the part where the RCCC claims that there is a plan of salvation for Muslims, it also states that that is because in the eyes of the RCC Muslims and Christians "adore" the same God.

What exactly do you see wrong with that?

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:39:25
Your above argument is rubbish, because if the RCC really meant that there was a plan of salvation for everybody, she would state in the RCCC "there is a plan of salvation for every non-Christian". 

And it does.
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:39:25
But the RCC doesn't do that, she specifically lifts out Islam and gives the reason why: they believe in the same God as Catholics do.

Just prior the paragraph about Muslims are two paragraphs about the Church's relationship to the Jewish People.

After the paragraph about Muslims there is a paragraph about the Church's relations to non-Christian religions.

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:39:25
On the other hand, no such statement is taken up for, for example Protestants.
If there would be one group that would be far more close, if not closest to Catholicism, then it would be Protestantism.

But it does include Protestants
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."

: AVZ  Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:39:25
Yet the RCC has the audacity to proclaim the Protestants anathema....."

The Catholic Church does not proclaim Protestants are anathema.

: Catholica  Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:46:28
The Mormons will also claim discernment.  Likely that is what they mean by that "burning in their belly".

If one doesn't know first with absolute certitude that they have the Holy Spirit, then they can't reliably know that other people's beliefs are false.  I'm sure that that Mormon person who also believes that he has the Holy Spirit (just as you do) would say the exact same thing about your group and beliefs.

In essence, you are not unlike the Mormon in this discernment.  You both have discerned that you have the Holy Spirit and you both believe the other is deceived.

Do you know what Mormons believe?  They don't believe that Jesus is God.  They believe He is a spirit brother of Satan.  Spirit son of their spirit 'god'.  Who was once just a man too.  Their 'heavenly father' and 'heavenly mother' have all these spirit babies... waiting to be born here on earth.
A human can become a god... (I'm sure that must be limited to men).  They must have a temple recommend and uphold all the temple/Mormon requirements in order to become a god themselves.  I'm sure there are many strict rules to follow to become a god.

They might be filled with a spirit, but it isn't the Holy Spirit.  You must be baptized into Christ for that.  Their 'Jesus' is just a man.

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

: skeeter  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

The Bible is authoritative, meaning true and reliabe. It is not authority.

Authority reside in people not books.

Timothy doesn't say anything in the Bible. I was asking who you would believe if Timothy contradicted someones personal interpretation of the Bible.

Suppose there were a letter, genuinely written by Timothy but not in the Bible, that contradicted someone's interpretation (say Luther's) of something Paul had written.
Would you go with Timothy or Luther?

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

: skeeter  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

The Bible is authoritative, meaning true and reliabe. It is not authority.

Authority reside in people not books.

Timothy doesn't say anything in the Bible. I was asking who you would believe if Timothy contradicted someones personal interpretation of the Bible.

Suppose there were a letter, genuinely written by Timothy but not in the Bible, that contradicted someone's interpretation (say Luther's) of something Paul had written.
Would you go with Timothy or Luther?

Just because it was a letter, genuinely written by Timothy does not mean that it was from God by the Holy Spirit.

Timothy or Luther?  If it was about something written in the Bible, then I would go with what was written in the Bible. 

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

: skeeter  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

The Bible is authoritative, meaning true and reliabe. It is not authority.

Authority reside in people not books.

Timothy doesn't say anything in the Bible. I was asking who you would believe if Timothy contradicted someones personal interpretation of the Bible.

Suppose there were a letter, genuinely written by Timothy but not in the Bible, that contradicted someone's interpretation (say Luther's) of something Paul had written.
Would you go with Timothy or Luther?

Just because it was a letter, genuinely written by Timothy does not mean that it was from God by the Holy Spirit.

Timothy or Luther?  If it was about something written in the Bible, then I would go with what was written in the Bible.

OK, you go with your own personal and fallible interpretation, even if your personal and fallible interpretation contradicts both Luther's and Timothy's.

And someone else goes with their personal and fallible interpretation even if it contradicts yours, Luther's and Timothy's.

Isn't Protestantism great!

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

: skeeter  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

The Bible is authoritative, meaning true and reliabe. It is not authority.

Authority reside in people not books.

Timothy doesn't say anything in the Bible. I was asking who you would believe if Timothy contradicted someones personal interpretation of the Bible.

Suppose there were a letter, genuinely written by Timothy but not in the Bible, that contradicted someone's interpretation (say Luther's) of something Paul had written.
Would you go with Timothy or Luther?

Just because it was a letter, genuinely written by Timothy does not mean that it was from God by the Holy Spirit.

Timothy or Luther?  If it was about something written in the Bible, then I would go with what was written in the Bible.

OK, you go with your own personal and fallible interpretation, even if your personal and fallible interpretation contradicts both Luther's and Timothy's.

And someone else goes with their personal and fallible interpretation even if it contradicts yours, Luther's and Timothy's.

Isn't Protestantism great!

And you would go with the RCC's interpretation even when it is wrong.  Isn't Catholicism great?

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:51:35

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

: skeeter  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

The Bible is authoritative, meaning true and reliabe. It is not authority.

Authority reside in people not books.

Timothy doesn't say anything in the Bible. I was asking who you would believe if Timothy contradicted someones personal interpretation of the Bible.

Suppose there were a letter, genuinely written by Timothy but not in the Bible, that contradicted someone's interpretation (say Luther's) of something Paul had written.
Would you go with Timothy or Luther?

Just because it was a letter, genuinely written by Timothy does not mean that it was from God by the Holy Spirit.

Timothy or Luther?  If it was about something written in the Bible, then I would go with what was written in the Bible.

OK, you go with your own personal and fallible interpretation, even if your personal and fallible interpretation contradicts both Luther's and Timothy's.

And someone else goes with their personal and fallible interpretation even if it contradicts yours, Luther's and Timothy's.

Isn't Protestantism great!

And you would go with the RCC's interpretation even when it is wrong.  Isn't Catholicism great?

The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that. So yes, Catholiciism is great. We have assuredness whereas Protestants do not.

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:51:35

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

: skeeter  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

The Bible is authoritative, meaning true and reliabe. It is not authority.

Authority reside in people not books.

Timothy doesn't say anything in the Bible. I was asking who you would believe if Timothy contradicted someones personal interpretation of the Bible.

Suppose there were a letter, genuinely written by Timothy but not in the Bible, that contradicted someone's interpretation (say Luther's) of something Paul had written.
Would you go with Timothy or Luther?

Just because it was a letter, genuinely written by Timothy does not mean that it was from God by the Holy Spirit.

Timothy or Luther?  If it was about something written in the Bible, then I would go with what was written in the Bible.

OK, you go with your own personal and fallible interpretation, even if your personal and fallible interpretation contradicts both Luther's and Timothy's.

And someone else goes with their personal and fallible interpretation even if it contradicts yours, Luther's and Timothy's.

Isn't Protestantism great!

And you would go with the RCC's interpretation even when it is wrong.  Isn't Catholicism great?

The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that. So yes, Catholiciism is great. We have assuredness whereas Protestants do not.

I am not a protestant but I am not Catholic either. I am grounded in the promises of God and assured that he guides me in sound interpretation. You see its not interpolation for interpolations sake. His word is life to me. 

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

Jesus, speaking to the Apostles, those he appointed to be the leaders of his Church:
But the Counsellor, 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 have said to you. (Jn 14:26)


When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Jn 16:13-14)

And to Peter
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

: mclees8  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:18:55

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:51:35

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

: skeeter  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

: winsome  Mon Apr 20, 2015 - 09:36:49
There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let's say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person.......and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27). 
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let's try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul's letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let's call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says "Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC". Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe?  Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – "Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther's doctrine is wrong." Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That's how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That's how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don't get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let's simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most "biblical". But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is "biblical", which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem 'right' to you? But that doesn't mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? 
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Authority is in the Bible, the word of God, not the RCC.

I believe what Paul, Peter or Timothy say too - we have what the 3 of them say in the Bible - which is very different than what the RCC teaches.

The Bible is authoritative, meaning true and reliabe. It is not authority.

Authority reside in people not books.

Timothy doesn't say anything in the Bible. I was asking who you would believe if Timothy contradicted someones personal interpretation of the Bible.

Suppose there were a letter, genuinely written by Timothy but not in the Bible, that contradicted someone's interpretation (say Luther's) of something Paul had written.
Would you go with Timothy or Luther?

Just because it was a letter, genuinely written by Timothy does not mean that it was from God by the Holy Spirit.

Timothy or Luther?  If it was about something written in the Bible, then I would go with what was written in the Bible.

OK, you go with your own personal and fallible interpretation, even if your personal and fallible interpretation contradicts both Luther's and Timothy's.

And someone else goes with their personal and fallible interpretation even if it contradicts yours, Luther's and Timothy's.

Isn't Protestantism great!

And you would go with the RCC's interpretation even when it is wrong.  Isn't Catholicism great?

The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that. So yes, Catholiciism is great. We have assuredness whereas Protestants do not.

I am not a protestant but I am not Catholic either. I am grounded in the promises of God and assured that he guides me in sound interpretation. You see its not interpolation for interpolations sake. His word is life to me.

There are no assurances that you are guided into sound interpretations.

Do you think your interpretations are infallible?

The problem is that many others with conflicting interpetations believe the Holy Spirit guides them infallibly into correct interpretations.

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

Jesus, speaking to the Apostles, those he appointed to be the leaders of his Church:
But the Counsellor, 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 have said to you. (Jn 14:26)


When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Jn 16:13-14)

And to Peter
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The words spoken by Jesus there that you posted from John 16 have nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC.  That is one of the first gross mistakes made by the RCC.

The church that Jesus spoke about there in Matthew 16 is the church I belong to, not the RCC.  Some in the RCC also belong to that same church as well, but it certainly isn't that religious organization headquartered in Italy.

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:38:25

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

Jesus, speaking to the Apostles, those he appointed to be the leaders of his Church:
But the Counsellor, 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 have said to you. (Jn 14:26)


When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Jn 16:13-14)

And to Peter
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The words spoken by Jesus there that you posted from John 16 have nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC.  That is one of the first gross mistakes made by the RCC.

The church that Jesus spoke about there in Matthew 16 is the church I belong to, not the RCC.  Some in the RCC also belong to that same church as well, but it certainly isn't that religious organization headquartered in Italy.

That may be your opinion but you are wrong.

What Church do you belong to?

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:54:39

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:38:25

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

Jesus, speaking to the Apostles, those he appointed to be the leaders of his Church:
But the Counsellor, 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 have said to you. (Jn 14:26)


When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Jn 16:13-14)

And to Peter
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The words spoken by Jesus there that you posted from John 16 have nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC.  That is one of the first gross mistakes made by the RCC.

The church that Jesus spoke about there in Matthew 16 is the church I belong to, not the RCC.  Some in the RCC also belong to that same church as well, but it certainly isn't that religious organization headquartered in Italy.

That may be your opinion but you are wrong.

What Church do you belong to?

No I am not wrong on either point.  I belong to the church that Jesus built. 

Eph 2:19  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
Eph 2:20  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
Eph 2:21  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
Eph 2:22  in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. 

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 08:15:44

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:54:39

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:38:25

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

Jesus, speaking to the Apostles, those he appointed to be the leaders of his Church:
But the Counsellor, 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 have said to you. (Jn 14:26)


When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Jn 16:13-14)

And to Peter
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The words spoken by Jesus there that you posted from John 16 have nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC.  That is one of the first gross mistakes made by the RCC.

The church that Jesus spoke about there in Matthew 16 is the church I belong to, not the RCC.  Some in the RCC also belong to that same church as well, but it certainly isn't that religious organization headquartered in Italy.

That may be your opinion but you are wrong.

What Church do you belong to?

No I am not wrong on either point.  I belong to the church that Jesus built. 

Eph 2:19  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
Eph 2:20  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
Eph 2:21  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
Eph 2:22  in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. 

That's the Catholic Church

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 08:17:38

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 08:15:44

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:54:39

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:38:25

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

: 4WD  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

: winsome  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

Jesus, speaking to the Apostles, those he appointed to be the leaders of his Church:
But the Counsellor, 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 have said to you. (Jn 14:26)


When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Jn 16:13-14)

And to Peter
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The words spoken by Jesus there that you posted from John 16 have nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC.  That is one of the first gross mistakes made by the RCC.

The church that Jesus spoke about there in Matthew 16 is the church I belong to, not the RCC.  Some in the RCC also belong to that same church as well, but it certainly isn't that religious organization headquartered in Italy.

That may be your opinion but you are wrong.

What Church do you belong to?

No I am not wrong on either point.  I belong to the church that Jesus built. 

Eph 2:19  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
Eph 2:20  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
Eph 2:21  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
Eph 2:22  in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. 

That's the Catholic Church

No its not.

I have an idea that will settle the debate once and for all. Why not get your Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every sectarian leader together and go before the Lord to seek His approval by power.

Let each leader present a cup of water and ask the Lord whosoever truly represents the Way as the apostles set forth, let that person or sects cup of water be turned into wine to one and for all settle who walks according to His Spirit.

There are only a few possible outcomes.

If no one's water is turned to wine than the whole lot are corrupt and need to seek the Lord in repentance.
If only one sects leader has their water turned into wine than it's that sect which represents the Way and the Lord.
If everyone's wine is turned into wine then the Lord has no problem with any of the forms or sects which the sects have taken for themselves and they are approved by God.
If only certain leaders/sects than these are the ones Good had chosen and the rest need to repent.

: His_will_i_am  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 08:22:13
I have an idea that will settle the debate once and for all. Why not get your Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every sectarian leader together and go before the Lord to seek His approval by power.

Let each leader present a cup of water and ask the Lord whosoever truly represents the Way as the apostles set forth, let that person or sects cup of water be turned into wine to one and for all settle who walks according to His Spirit.

There are only a few possible outcomes.

If no one's water is turned to wine than the whole lot are corrupt and need to seek the Lord in repentance.
If only one sects leader has their water turned into wine than it's that sect which represents the Way and the Lord.
If everyone's wine is turned into wine then the Lord has no problem with any of the forms or sects which the sects have taken for themselves and they are approved by God.
If only certain leaders/sects than these are the ones Good had chosen and the rest need to repent.

Its an interesting proposition.  But history has shown that even miracles will not convince some.  Plus we are ordered to not put the Lord to the test.

I think that the historical feasibleness is enough for most people to tell which is the true Church. That alone would eliminate the need to spend time pouring at least 40,000 cups of water.

: Catholica  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 09:31:11

: His_will_i_am  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 08:22:13
I have an idea that will settle the debate once and for all. Why not get your Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every sectarian leader together and go before the Lord to seek His approval by power.

Let each leader present a cup of water and ask the Lord whosoever truly represents the Way as the apostles set forth, let that person or sects cup of water be turned into wine to one and for all settle who walks according to His Spirit.

There are only a few possible outcomes.

If no one's water is turned to wine than the whole lot are corrupt and need to seek the Lord in repentance.
If only one sects leader has their water turned into wine than it's that sect which represents the Way and the Lord.
If everyone's wine is turned into wine then the Lord has no problem with any of the forms or sects which the sects have taken for themselves and they are approved by God.
If only certain leaders/sects than these are the ones Good had chosen and the rest need to repent.

Its an interesting proposition.  But history has shown that even miracles will not convince some.  Plus we are ordered to not put the Lord to the test.

I think that the historical feasibleness is enough for most people to tell which is the true Church. That alone would eliminate the need to spend time pouring at least 40,000 cups of water.

But isn't that what Elijah did to reveal the Lord to Israel? And wouldn't He want His people separated from the erred religions in His Name?

: LexKnight  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 14:21:08

: Catholica  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 09:31:11

: His_will_i_am  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 08:22:13
I have an idea that will settle the debate once and for all. Why not get your Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every sectarian leader together and go before the Lord to seek His approval by power.

Let each leader present a cup of water and ask the Lord whosoever truly represents the Way as the apostles set forth, let that person or sects cup of water be turned into wine to one and for all settle who walks according to His Spirit.

There are only a few possible outcomes.

If no one's water is turned to wine than the whole lot are corrupt and need to seek the Lord in repentance.
If only one sects leader has their water turned into wine than it's that sect which represents the Way and the Lord.
If everyone's wine is turned into wine then the Lord has no problem with any of the forms or sects which the sects have taken for themselves and they are approved by God.
If only certain leaders/sects than these are the ones Good had chosen and the rest need to repent.

Its an interesting proposition.  But history has shown that even miracles will not convince some.  Plus we are ordered to not put the Lord to the test.

I think that the historical feasibleness is enough for most people to tell which is the true Church. That alone would eliminate the need to spend time pouring at least 40,000 cups of water.

But isn't that what Elijah did to reveal the Lord to Israel? And wouldn't He want His people separated from the erred religions in His Name?

Numbers 16 also comes to mind. 

Blessed are those who walk by faith and not by sight, those are the words of Jesus in the New Testament.

Yes, he wants His people to have the Truth and be in the true religion.  And He is working within people of Good Will to bring that about.

Sounds like cop outs...

: LexKnight  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 14:21:08

: Catholica  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 09:31:11

: His_will_i_am  Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 08:22:13
I have an idea that will settle the debate once and for all. Why not get your Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every sectarian leader together and go before the Lord to seek His approval by power.

Let each leader present a cup of water and ask the Lord whosoever truly represents the Way as the apostles set forth, let that person or sects cup of water be turned into wine to one and for all settle who walks according to His Spirit.

There are only a few possible outcomes.

If no one's water is turned to wine than the whole lot are corrupt and need to seek the Lord in repentance.
If only one sects leader has their water turned into wine than it's that sect which represents the Way and the Lord.
If everyone's wine is turned into wine then the Lord has no problem with any of the forms or sects which the sects have taken for themselves and they are approved by God.
If only certain leaders/sects than these are the ones Good had chosen and the rest need to repent.

Its an interesting proposition.  But history has shown that even miracles will not convince some.  Plus we are ordered to not put the Lord to the test.

I think that the historical feasibleness is enough for most people to tell which is the true Church. That alone would eliminate the need to spend time pouring at least 40,000 cups of water.

But isn't that what Elijah did to reveal the Lord to Israel? And wouldn't He want His people separated from the erred religions in His Name?

That's how many read those scriptures in 1 Kings.

Elijah's trial of the false prophets. (https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/Matthew-Henry/1Kgs/Elijahs-Trial-False-Prophets)
Many of the people wavered in their judgment, and varied in their practice. Elijah called upon them to determine whether Jehovah or Baal was the self-existent, supreme God, the Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world, and to follow him alone. It is dangerous to halt between the service of God and the service of sin, the dominion of Christ and the dominion of our lusts. If Jesus be the only Saviour, let us cleave to him alone for every thing; if the Bible be the world of God, let us

reverence and receive the whole of it, and submit our understanding to the Divine teaching it contains. Elijah proposed to bring the matter to a trial. Baal had all the outward advantages, but the event encourages all God's witnesses and advocates never to fear the face of man. The God that answers by fire, let him be God: the atonement was to be made by sacrifice, before the judgment could be removed in mercy. The God therefore that has power to pardon sin, and to signify it by consuming the

sin-offering, must needs be the God that can relieve from the calamity. God never required his worshippers to honour him in the manner of the worshippers of Baal; but the service of the devil, though sometimes it pleases and pampers the body, yet, in other things, really is cruel to it, as in envy and drunkenness. God requires that we mortify our lusts and corruptions; but bodily penances and severities are no pleasure to him. Who has required these things at your hands? A few words uttered in

assured faith, and with fervent affection for the glory of God, and love to the souls of men, or thirstings after the Lord's image and his favour, form the effectual, fervent prayer of the righteous man, which availeth much. Elijah sought not his own glory, but that of God, for the good of the people. The people are all agreed, convinced, and satisfied; Jehovah, he is the God. Some, we hope, had their hearts turned, but most of them were convinced only, not converted. Blessed are they that have

not seen what these saw, yet have believed, and have been wrought upon by it, more than they that saw it. (1Ki 18:41-46)

Previous commentary:
Elijah meets Ahab.
Next commentary:
Elijah, by prayer, obtains rain.

About this commentary:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible is available in the Public Domain.