Christian Forums

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:39:43

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:34:28

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:20:58

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 12:10:08

Quote from: MeMyself on 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.

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 11:02:57

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.

Quote from: Catholica on 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.

Quote from: mclees8 on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 13:32:18

Quote from: Catholica on 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

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.





The Muslim Times = pope Benedict and the koran

Quote from: mclees8 on 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)

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)

Quote from: winsome on 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)

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)

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.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 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.

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

Quote from: winsome on 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)

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)

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.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. 

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

Quote from: winsome on 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)

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)

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.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?

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

Quote from: winsome on 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)

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)

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.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?

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:33:00

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

Quote from: winsome on 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)

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)

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.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?

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 19:01:27

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:33:00

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 17:09:12

Quote from: Buster D Body Crab on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 15:37:27

Quote from: winsome on 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)

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)

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.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?

Why isn't the Pope kissing the Book of Mormon? 

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 22, 2015 - 22:48:25
Why isn't the Pope kissing the Book of Mormon?

Quote from: Catholica on 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.

Quote from: AVZ on Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 04:00:17

Quote from: Catholica on 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 

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: Catholica on Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:03:25

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: AVZ on Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:39:25

Quote from: Catholica on Thu Apr 23, 2015 - 11:03:25

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: AVZ on 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?

Quote from: AVZ on 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."

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: AVZ on 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."

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: Catholica on 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.

Quote from: winsome on 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.

Quote from: skeeter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

Quote from: winsome on 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?

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

Quote from: skeeter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

Quote from: winsome on 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. 

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

Quote from: skeeter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

Quote from: winsome on 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!

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

Quote from: skeeter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

Quote from: winsome on 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?

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:51:35

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

Quote from: skeeter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

Quote from: winsome on 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.

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55
The Catholic Church's interpretation is not wrong. We have Jesus' promise for that.

Where?

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:51:35

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

Quote from: skeeter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

Quote from: winsome on 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. 

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

Quote from: winsome on 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)

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:18:55

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:01:55

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:51:35

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:28:28

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:23:38

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 06:16:36

Quote from: skeeter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 03:38:37

Quote from: winsome on 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.

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

Quote from: winsome on 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.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:38:25

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

Quote from: winsome on 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?

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:54:39

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:38:25

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:27:00

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 - 07:11:19

Quote from: winsome on 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.