Christian Forums

Funny thing Catholica. I cant count how many times those in rebellion to God have said to me, "you are not God" when I have never ever claimed to be anything! I have not even called myself a christian anywhere in this forum. But interestingly enough those who think I claimed to be God have heard the truth from Gods lips and have rejected it!

Therefore, go back to the beginning of this topic and read and understand all the scriptures that were given you concerning the topics discussed in this forum and HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD exposing catholic fallacies.

Quote from: Visionary on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:15:57
And so because so many of you are focused on men and do not hear the Lord will make something perfectly clear to you... 2 Corinthians 5:11-17

You have to be rational for us, Visionary, and you have not been.  Thus you are not a very good prophet.  

2 Corinthians 5:13
For if we are out of our minds, it is for God; if we are rational, it is for you.

I think a word for you is here: 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Quote from: islanddogs on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:20:04


Chesterton not wanting to have a war. But we need to be clear on differences. My view as you will have noted is that we look at scripture. For me the fact that we have scripture is the point of Luke 10:16.

I also believe that the Apostles had a distinct role, now completed. and the loosed in heaven and earth is within scripture, We can know what our sins are. It is clear that we do not need a Pope/ Apostle to bring this to us, he has been brought.

I'm assuming the reference to Chesterton is because you are Catholic, do you think the post I made earlier is a fair reflection of our differences.

[/quote]

We have scripture, but scripture alone does not lead us to the Truth.  This is clearly the case because many Christians believe that the bible is the Word of God, but there are multiple contradictory beliefs among these bible believing Christians.

For example:

Baptism:  Necessary for Salvation or Not?

Once saved always saved?

Infant baptism valid?

Salvation by faith alone?   etc.


These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.


What do you think?

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:31:03
For example:

Baptism:  Necessary for Salvation or Not?

Once saved always saved?

Infant baptism valid?

Salvation by faith alone?   etc.


These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.


What do you think?

Baptism:  Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Yes it is.  Not the baptism of water, per se, but the baptism of repentance, and the baptism of the Spirit.  But really, why wouldnt' one want the water as well?  They're all part of the same thing...

OSAS - is built on a faulty premise, since it assumes that some parts of salvation, which are yet in teh future, are present realities.

Infant baptism valid?
The rite of water is certainly valid for the purpose of adding the person to the church's membership.  It doesn't confer salvation though, unless it is accompanied by the repentance and the spirit.

Salvation by faith alone?
That describes what we have to do to maintain and keep our salvation.  But it does nothing to describe God's part in it.  In my experience, Catholics and Protestants alike don't understand the original intent of the statement.  But that doesn't stop them from arguing over it.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:51:27

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:31:03
For example:

Baptism:  Necessary for Salvation or Not?

Once saved always saved?

Infant baptism valid?

Salvation by faith alone?   etc.


These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.


What do you think?

Baptism:  Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Yes it is.  Not the baptism of water, per se, but the baptism of repentance, and the baptism of the Spirit.  But really, why wouldnt' one want the water as well?  They're all part of the same thing...

OSAS - is built on a faulty premise, since it assumes that some parts of salvation, which are yet in teh future, are present realities.

Infant baptism valid?
The rite of water is certainly valid for the purpose of adding the person to the church's membership.  It doesn't confer salvation though, unless it is accompanied by the repentance and the spirit.

Salvation by faith alone?
That describes what we have to do to maintain and keep our salvation.  But it does nothing to describe God's part in it.  In my experience, Catholics and Protestants alike don't understand the original intent of the statement.  But that doesn't stop them from arguing over it.

You are offering your opinions on these issues, but you are not addressing my point.

If the bible is all we need to find the Truth, then why are there so many different interpretations on central matters of the faith?

Jesus didn't write  book, he built a Church.  His Church wrote down his teachings with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and this Church was given authority by Jesus and a promise that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all Truth.

Outside of the Church you will find division, pride, and personal whim guiding Christians.

Hi Chesterton

As you did not answer my question I will assume that a) you are Catholic and b) that you agree with my general points as to the difference between the Catholic and reformed teachings (reformed in the broad sense).

On Baptism, or the mode of baptism, I do not make this a matter of division. For Baptists it is the full immersion( the one I chose) for the Anglicans, it would be infant, However that is to forget that their confession of faith comes at confirmation.

I have no doubt that the teaching for both Baptism and Confirmation is that you should know Jesus Christ.

As to once saved always saved, I do believe this, but this comes down to the difference around Transubstantiation, you see Jesus says "none will be lost out of his hand" so our salvation once we have placed our trust in him relies on Jesus not us. Secondly Jesus has prayed for the believers, John 17.

Your last point seems to refer to the comment before the Transfiguration of Christ,

Matthew 16: 16 " Simon Peter answered 'you are the Christ the Son of the Living God' 17 Jesus replied 'blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but my Father in heaven18 And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it".

There were more Apostles than just Peter. So I believe that the rock was the confession and believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, this is what the church is built on. The truth that is eluciadated throughout the scriptures, time and again. If you want the verses, they can be found in Galatians 1, I corinthians 1, Ephesians 1, and others.

Hope that helps, I just want the dividing lines to be clear rather than have a personalised debate.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:56:43
You are offering your opinions on these issues, but you are not addressing my point.

True enough, but this thread is so far off topic, and so malignant in its attitudes, that I was actually HOPING to create a tangent that would be... less yucky.

QuoteIf the bible is all we need to find the Truth, then why are there so many different interpretations on central matters of the faith?

As you yourself pointed out, I didn't make the argument that the Bible is all we need.

QuoteOutside of the Church you will find division, pride, and personal whim guiding Christians.

Those are funny names for GPS units...  ;-)

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:56:43

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:51:27

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:31:03
For example:

Baptism:  Necessary for Salvation or Not?

Once saved always saved?

Infant baptism valid?

Salvation by faith alone?   etc.


These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.


What do you think?

Baptism:  Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Yes it is.  Not the baptism of water, per se, but the baptism of repentance, and the baptism of the Spirit.  But really, why wouldnt' one want the water as well?  They're all part of the same thing...

OSAS - is built on a faulty premise, since it assumes that some parts of salvation, which are yet in teh future, are present realities.

Infant baptism valid?
The rite of water is certainly valid for the purpose of adding the person to the church's membership.  It doesn't confer salvation though, unless it is accompanied by the repentance and the spirit.

Salvation by faith alone?
That describes what we have to do to maintain and keep our salvation.  But it does nothing to describe God's part in it.  In my experience, Catholics and Protestants alike don't understand the original intent of the statement.  But that doesn't stop them from arguing over it.

You are offering your opinions on these issues, but you are not addressing my point.

If the bible is all we need to find the Truth, then why are there so many different interpretations on central matters of the faith?

Jesus didn't write  book, he built a Church.  His Church wrote down his teachings with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and this Church was given authority by Jesus and a promise that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all Truth.

Outside of the Church you will find division, pride, and personal whim guiding Christians.

Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04
Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving

God bless

The Holy Spirit placed bishops to rule over the Church. 

Acts 20:28  Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

And the people in the Church are to obey the bishops and the priest.  So, yes, it is an authority thing. 

Hebrews 13:17  Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

God bless mclees. May I ask you. Are these quarrelsome catholics a joy to you when they refuse to love the truth and be saved from a corrupt catholic church government?

Quote from: Visionary on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 22:54:29
God bless mclees. May I ask you. Are these quarrelsome catholics a joy to you when they refuse to love the truth and be saved from a corrupt catholic church government?

Religious pride is very hard to brake. Not even Jesus forced truth on those who would not hear it. How ever we must speak the truth with as much patients love as possible and not argue  with anyone. The day will come when The lord will reveal the truth to them and they will know a prophet has been amongst them.

god bless

Quote from: Selene on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 22:37:27

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04
Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving

God bless

The Holy Spirit placed bishops to rule over the Church. 

Acts 20:28  Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

And the people in the Church are to obey the bishops and the priest.  So, yes, it is an authority thing. 

Hebrews 13:17  Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

One of the first and greatest requirements of the Lords leadership is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. If one who has managed to achieve a position of authority and not be led of the spirit or ceases to be led of Him He is not a true bishop of the Lords church but just one who has a title position. This is in the church much more than we know. but yes we are to obey those who are over us yet we are not to be as blind fools either. If we do not know the word as we are admonished to then we will be as blind being led by the blind.

God bless

Selene I would be really grateful, if you could tell me which translation you use. I have a number but that is not amongst them. Thanks

Quote from: islanddogs on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 04:22:58
Selene I would be really grateful, if you could tell me which translation you use. I have a number but that is not amongst them. Thanks

I used the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is a Catholic Bible.  If I am not mistaken, the Douay-Rheims is the oldest English Bible of the Catholic Church.  However, it is not the oldest Bible we have.  We have a much older one written during the fourth century, but I can't read Latin.     

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 02:01:56
One of the first and greatest requirements of the Lords leadership is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. If one who has managed to achieve a position of authority and not be led of the spirit or ceases to be led of Him He is not a true bishop of the Lords church but just one who has a title position. This is in the church much more than we know. but yes we are to obey those who are over us yet we are not to be as blind fools either. If we do not know the word as we are admonished to then we will be as blind being led by the blind.

God bless

Didn't you just posted that the Church that Christ built is not an "authority" thing? 

Quote from: Selene on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 05:26:40

Quote from: islanddogs on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 04:22:58
Selene I would be really grateful, if you could tell me which translation you use. I have a number but that is not amongst them. Thanks

I used the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is a Catholic Bible.  If I am not mistaken, the Douay-Rheims is the oldest English Bible of the Catholic Church.  However, it is not the oldest Bible we have.  We have a much older one written during the fourth century, but I can't read Latin.     

Thanks selene, I will check on line, I did not know of its existence.

Quote from: Selene on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 05:29:19

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 02:01:56
One of the first and greatest requirements of the Lords leadership is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. If one who has managed to achieve a position of authority and not be led of the spirit or ceases to be led of Him He is not a true bishop of the Lords church but just one who has a title position. This is in the church much more than we know. but yes we are to obey those who are over us yet we are not to be as blind fools either. If we do not know the word as we are admonished to then we will be as blind being led by the blind.

God bless

Didn't you just posted that the Church that Christ built is not an "authority" thing? 

Yes i did. But as you should know that all true  leadership are men who have recieved the Holy Spirit, but this is not just leadership but all who come to Christ. The church is the whole body of christ and it is not just hierarchical leaders .

Being Born again of the Spirit is not going to some religious seminary and getting a degree in divinity. it is not just choosing a religious vocation. It is not having some church position or office. It is Gods indwelt spirit that lives within our hearts.   I can say much more on this giving scripture and verse but as one who professes  Christ and knows as much as you do you should know this. 

God bless

Dear Selene i posted this  a couple of days ago. I wonder if by chance you read it. If not could you read it now. I wonder if you would agree with it. I got no responses and not even an amen or a thank you not that anyone hast to. I am thankful for any who did.   But if this message is for all of us how much more for those who lead us.


A personal message

This comes from one of my two devotionals that I read daily. I especially thought this was a message for every believer and church goer. I am not the judge of any man but we all can judge ourselves. I pray this will be a blessing to all who read it.  This is where the sheep are separated from the goats and tares from the wheat. This is what sustains every true believer even beyond his church walls no matter what denominational experience you have. We are not saved by affiliation but by relation. Not of institutions or men, But Jesus Christ  The day may come when you will have to make a choice to stand on your faith in Christ alone without any crutch to hold you up but the hand of Jesus. When Jesus bid Peter to come out on the water he left the safety of the boat alone and the others did not join him. He had only Jesus to look to. And when he took his eyes off him he began to sink and only the hand of Christ was left to save him
God bless



And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Philippians  3:9


Paul could have boasted of noble birth, special privileges, and rank and pedigree. He had religious background and training. He was active and zealous for a religious cause. But such things alone could not bring him salvation or peace with God.

Religion with out a relationship with Christ puts us on a wrong road. Such was the case with Paul before his conversion experience. A person can be very religious but still not be right with God. Sadly this is the plight of many nominal church members. They may have been raised in Christian homes and had a Christian education. They may go to church, make a lip profession, outwardly  comply with church standards, and lead respectable lives. But that is not enough. From today's Bible reading we see that religious education, activity and credentials avail nothing apart from a personal faith in Jesus Christ and a relationship with Him. We do not earn salvation through good works or self achieved righteousness, but we are saved by faith through grace through faith. The basis for our assurance hope and confidence is in the person of the lord Jesus.

Those things Paul once counted as gain he later counted as loss compared to the priceless privilege of knowing Christ as Savior and lord. Then his focus became, " that I might know Him

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04


Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving

God bless

The apostles were the leaders of the Church.  The Church, ie. the apostles and elders, was given authority by Jesus.

If we are Christians then we should accept the authority of the Church Jesus started, right?

Do you believe that the apostles passed on their authority to successors, or that the authority died when the apostles died?

[quote author=chestertonrules

The apostles were the leaders of the Church.  The Church, ie. the apostles and elders, was given authority by Jesus.

If we are Christians then we should accept the authority of the Church Jesus started, right?

Do you believe that the apostles passed on their authority to successors, or that the authority died when the apostles died?
[/quote]

I was unsure of whether you wanted to answer my post. However I will attempt to reply to this even though it was not specifically for me.

The Apostles were chosen to take the Gospel into the world, the Commission Matthew 28:18-20 for instance. The Church itself has the foundation of the word, that is the Believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God. The Apostles were also confirmed by Jesus through Miracles. The elders were given to continue the teachings passed down by the Apostles, 2 Timothy 1 :12-13, and written down for our benefit 2 Peter 1:12-16.

The authority of the Church can  only remain in so far as it agrees with the bible teaching(doctrine) the church cannot pervert, change or add to the message which was given for the Salvation of man/woman. Tradition added is not tradition 2 Thess 3:6.

I believed that the Apostles passed on their teaching, not their authority, this was linked directly with the Gospel message.

For instance there is no biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception. I would be grateful if you could post a verse or verses which point to this teaching.

Thanks Chesterton

Hi again Selene

I have checked about the Dhouay - Rheims Bible. Apparently it was written as a Catholic defence against the reformers. It was unashamedly a Polemic to guard the Catholic traditions. The OT was translated at the University of Douai , the NT at Riems.

The writers worked I believe with the Jesuits set up to bring an intellectual rigour to the Catholic polemic. Unfortunately they did not go back to the Greek, this was an argument of Erasmus, who supported some of the reformers only because they studied the Greek. The reformers also studied the Hebrew. It was the adherence to the Latin that caused some of the translation problems, which is what I noticed in the posts from Hebrews and Acts.

I would like to discuss your use of prelate and Bishop on the forum if you dont mind, without personalising the comments. I would be grateful if you and Chesterton would be prepared to look at some of the bible passages toghether. I will not claim any authority over either of you. I'm certainly not a Prophet or an Apostle, or even a teacher. But I would like to look at the Bible.

Quote from: islanddogs on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 12:11:04


The authority of the Church can  only remain in so far as it agrees with the bible teaching(doctrine) the church cannot pervert, change or add to the message which was given for the Salvation of man/woman. Tradition added is not tradition 2 Thess 3:6.

I believed that the Apostles passed on their teaching, not their authority, this was linked directly with the Gospel message.

For instance there is no biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception. I would be grateful if you could post a verse or verses which point to this teaching.

Thanks Chesterton

The bible does not teach doctrine in the sense that it can be interpreted in many different ways.  Only a church can teach doctrine.

Many who claim to believe the bible teach contradicting doctrines.

Jesus understood human nature, so he gave us a teaching authority to protect the Truth.

The books of the New Testament weren't even selected for more than 200 years after the death of Jesus, yet the Church thrived and grew during this period.


Some scripture for you to consider:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.


Note that when a question of doctrine arose in Antioch(see Acts 15), they didn't resolve it themselves, they consulted the Church.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Thanks again Chesterton. I will try to go through the verses one by one.

Some scripture for you to consider:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It is true that the church is the chosen vehicle of God to convey his meassage, however when a church change a foundational truth, then it gives over this ground. verses I would like you to consider here are Revelation 2:5, Rev 3:3, Rev 3:8, Rev 3:14-22.
Hebrews 12:23 and Rev 1:4 which talks of 7 churches, or local churches. I think the local church is vital, a group may be acceptable, but the local gathering is too important to the ongoing message.


2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

I agree, but this is the bible, not the church, as I said I gave the example of the Immaculate Conception, if you could show me the verse for this teaching I would appreciate it. If there is not one perhaps you could acknowledge this.

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

I agree , but this is the Apostles, John was an Apostle the fact that he uses the third person reflects on the other Apostles.


Note that when a question of doctrine arose in Antioch(see Acts 15), they didn't resolve it themselves, they consulted the Church.

They consulted the Apostles.  Acts 15:6. I'm not refuting the need for elders. I'm refuting only the elevation of unbiblical traditions. If you could give me verses on the five I posted I would be grateful. If they extra biblical then they are unwarranted teachings.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
[/quote]

If you could post the verses please.

Quote from: islanddogs on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 13:51:28

QuoteIt is true that the church is the chosen vehicle of God to convey his meassage, however when a church change a foundational truth, then it gives over this ground. verses I would like you to consider here are

It is the Church that decides foundational Truth.  Where do you think foundational Truth is found?

QuoteRevelation 2:5, Rev 3:3, Rev 3:8, Rev 3:14-22.
Hebrews 12:23 and Rev 1:4 which talks of 7 churches, or local churches. I think the local church is vital, a group may be acceptable, but the local gathering is too important to the ongoing message.

Local Churches do not have the authority to teach doctrine contray to the universal Church.

QuoteI agree, but this is the bible, not the church, as I said I gave the example of the Immaculate Conception, if you could show me the verse for this teaching I would appreciate it. If there is not one perhaps you could acknowledge this.

The bible does not contain all Truth, but all of the bible is True.  That being said, the immaculate conception is scriptural and I have previously provided you an explanation.

Quote
I agree , but this is the Apostles, John was an Apostle the fact that he uses the third person reflects on the other Apostles.

So do you believe that the authority of the Church died with the last apostle?

Here's something from Clement, the fifth pope, that addresses this point:

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

QuoteNote that when a question of doctrine arose in Antioch(see Acts 15), they didn't resolve it themselves, they consulted the Church.

They consulted the Apostles.  Acts 15:6. I'm not refuting the need for elders. I'm refuting only the elevation of unbiblical traditions. If you could give me verses on the five I posted I would be grateful. If they extra biblical then they are unwarranted teachings.

They consulted church leadership, they didn't formulate their own doctrine.

QuoteIf you could post the verses please.

Scripture is quoted in the article:


Regarding the Immaculate Conception:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

I managed to check the verse Luke1:28.

Hail- is a general greeting, so there is nothing conferred on Mary at this point.

Favoured is Charitoo- and that means to indue with favour, or make accepted. Again the word does not in any way constitute an Immaculate birth.

Blessed is Eulogeo- most will see that our word eulogy comes from this, it means to speak well of.

In addition there are the verses when Jesus refers to Mary in a sense Mother being meter, and from where the Latin MATER came from.

Matthew 12:49, Mark 3:35, Luke 8:21 and also at the crucifixion John 19:27.

Hope that helps, and thank you, hope we can avoid the personalised comments. If we all look at scripture then Jesus will convince us of truth at his own time.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 14:01:40

Quote from: islanddogs on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 13:51:28



It is the Church that decides foundational Truth.  Where do you think foundational Truth is found?

Local Churches do not have the authority to teach doctrine contray to the universal Church.

The bible does not contain all Truth, but all of the bible is True.  That being said, the immaculate conception is scriptural and I have previously provided you an explanation.

They consulted church leadership, they didn't formulate their own doctrine.

Chesterton I have put your comments here. I have deleted mine for brevity.
It isnt the church that decided foundational truth. Foundational Truth is in the bible, it is clear and evident. I would disagree as it does contain all we need for Salvation. The Immaculate Conception you can read my post above at no time was this made clear in the bible, and it was a late 17c vision which resulted in doctrine. The consultation took place with the Apostles and the Elders, they went away from the church Acts 15:6 to check their answer. True, however with the Bible we have a final word on Doctrine.

Hope we can keep the debate friendly, we both disagree, I do not take your views personal, hope you can see mine in the same way. We both hopefully will look to our bibles.

Quote from: islanddogs on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 14:19:52


Chesterton I have put your comments here. I have deleted mine for brevity.
It isnt the church that decided foundational truth. Foundational Truth is in the bible, it is clear and evident. I would disagree as it does contain all we need for Salvation. The Immaculate Conception you can read my post above at no time was this made clear in the bible, and it was a late 17c vision which resulted in doctrine. The consultation took place with the Apostles and the Elders, they went away from the church Acts 15:6 to check their answer. True, however with the Bible we have a final word on Doctrine.

Hope we can keep the debate friendly, we both disagree, I do not take your views personal, hope you can see mine in the same way. We both hopefully will look to our bibles.

The Church does decide foundational Truth.  Included among these Truths are the books of the New Testament, which were selected by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


I'll repeat this because I think it is important.   The bible is not doctrine.  Multiple doctrines  have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other.  Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.


I'm sure we can keep the debate friendly.  Your questions are great and I understand where you are coming from.

Quote from: islanddogs on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 12:19:35
Hi again Selene

I have checked about the Dhouay - Rheims Bible. Apparently it was written as a Catholic defence against the reformers. It was unashamedly a Polemic to guard the Catholic traditions. The OT was translated at the University of Douai , the NT at Riems.

The writers worked I believe with the Jesuits set up to bring an intellectual rigour to the Catholic polemic. Unfortunately they did not go back to the Greek, this was an argument of Erasmus, who supported some of the reformers only because they studied the Greek. The reformers also studied the Hebrew. It was the adherence to the Latin that caused some of the translation problems, which is what I noticed in the posts from Hebrews and Acts.

I would like to discuss your use of prelate and Bishop on the forum if you dont mind, without personalising the comments. I would be grateful if you and Chesterton would be prepared to look at some of the bible passages toghether. I will not claim any authority over either of you. I'm certainly not a Prophet or an Apostle, or even a teacher. But I would like to look at the Bible.

Actually, the Douay-Rheims is a translation from the Latin Vulgate, which was written in the fourth century.  The person who wrote the Latin Vulgate knew how to speak Greek and Hebrew.  It was St. Jerome who translated the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate.  St. Jerome was also very familiar with the culture and idioms of the time period.

The Douay-Rheims was written for two reasons 1) to provide the faithful with a Bible that they could read and 2) many of the Protestant translation at that time included controversial and biased translations to support their views of the Reformation.  As a matter of fact, the Protestant Bible even took out 7 books out of the Old Testament including parts of Daniel and Esther.  The Douay-Rheims did not take out those books.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/What-is-the-Douay-Rheims-Bible/article/190

Quote from: chestertonrules on Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 10:22:56

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04


Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving

God bless

The apostles were the leaders of the Church.  The Church, ie. the apostles and elders, was given authority by Jesus.

If we are Christians then we should accept the authority of the Church Jesus started, right?

Do you believe that the apostles passed on their authority to successors, or that the authority died when the apostles died?

Just what point are trying to make here Chesterton.? Jesus said we were to obey those in authority over us. And yes the apostles wrote what they taught under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit. What was written was to be our foundational truth. It could be trusted and did not change. When they laid hands on others to be the teaching authority. they were to hold to what the apostles taught, for what they taught was our foundation for truth. just as they learned from Christ. Jesus taught humility as servants. They did not make a big show of authority nor were they dogmatically claiming  authority which the papacy seems to flaunt demand that they are. The apostles did not change into religious clothes to flaunt their office as the popes and the hierarchy does .

As Jesus said in all that they do they do to be seen of men. They also overstep the apostles by giving themselves the right to invent and create doctrines that  scripture does not support. And the list goes on and on.

So you were wanting to justify the papacy   

God bless

 

The Church does decide foundational Truth.  Included among these Truths are the books of the New Testament, which were selected by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Chesterton, Galatians 1:6-9 gives some strong warnings about the Gospel received.


I'll repeat this because I think it is important.   The bible is not doctrine.  Multiple doctrines  have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other.  Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.

Chesterton I did not say that the Bible was doctrine, I did say that an accumulation of passages around certain teachings helped to form the doctrines. For instance of Salvation. Ephesians 2:1-10. Of the Resurrection 1 Cor 15. On scripture (Law and Testimony) Isaiah 8:20 and Romans 2:14-15, there are others.

So the Bible has already given us Doctrine/teaching to follow, teaching comes from the greek didaskalia. The strongest evidence is Matthew 28:20, the Apostles and disciples were told to take the message about what they had already been taught.


I'm sure we can keep the debate friendly.  Your questions are great and I understand where you are coming from.
[/quote]

Thank you for this and I hope so. I work for an Irish organisation, who are predominantly Catholic, mainly lapsed, but I'm not going to sink to being rude. Have a Good weekend.

Hi Selene sorry if I sounded flippant or condenscending, I'm truly not looking for a fight.

This is what my research gleaned. The 1st edition was printed at the University in Reims (Rhiems) in 1852 and was the New Testament and was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. At the University of Douai (Dhouay) the OT was pronted Gen-Job in 1609 and Psalms to Maccabees in 1610.

It is often described as Polemic and Patristic ( theological academics) and to support the counter reformation, as the reformation was reliant on the bible being translated into the language of the particular nation. Luther (German) Tyndale (English) Calvin and his friends (French) for instance.

It was reprinted in 1600,1621,1633 the NT and 1635 the OT. Although still heavily reliant on Latin Vocabulary.

Richard Challinor was given the task of another translation and In 1749,1750, and 1752 the NT was republished. and in 1750 the OT (without the Apocrypha) was published. One difference was that Challinor took the KJV as his base, he also used the Clementine Vulgate.

Then between 1783 and 1810 MacMahon reprinted in Dublin and this apparently is the version most used in the US versions of the 20th C.

Most of the information came from the Wiki. Sorry again if I offended you, not my intention, really. Just wanted clarity that the Latin was used as the base, and not Hebrew or Greek, the languages of the bible.

Have a good weekend.

Quote from: islanddogs on Sat Oct 09, 2010 - 05:12:42
Hi Selene sorry if I sounded flippant or condenscending, I'm truly not looking for a fight.

This is what my research gleaned. The 1st edition was printed at the University in Reims (Rhiems) in 1852 and was the New Testament and was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. At the University of Douai (Dhouay) the OT was pronted Gen-Job in 1609 and Psalms to Maccabees in 1610.

It is often described as Polemic and Patristic ( theological academics) and to support the counter reformation, as the reformation was reliant on the bible being translated into the language of the particular nation. Luther (German) Tyndale (English) Calvin and his friends (French) for instance.

It was reprinted in 1600,1621,1633 the NT and 1635 the OT. Although still heavily reliant on Latin Vocabulary.

Richard Challinor was given the task of another translation and In 1749,1750, and 1752 the NT was republished. and in 1750 the OT (without the Apocrypha) was published. One difference was that Challinor took the KJV as his base, he also used the Clementine Vulgate.

Then between 1783 and 1810 MacMahon reprinted in Dublin and this apparently is the version most used in the US versions of the 20th C.

Most of the information came from the Wiki. Sorry again if I offended you, not my intention, really. Just wanted clarity that the Latin was used as the base, and not Hebrew or Greek, the languages of the bible.

Have a good weekend.

Why are you sorry?  This is what Wiki stated: 

The Douay–Rheims Bible (also known as the Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R) is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai. The New Testament was published in Reims (France) in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament, which was published by the University of Douai, followed nearly thirty years later in two volumes; the first volume (Genesis to Job) in 1609, the second (Psalms to 2 Machabees plus the apocrypha of the Clementine Vulgate) in 1610. Marginal notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which up till then had ovewhelmingly dominated Elizabethan religion and academic debate. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation

The Douay-Rheims was a translation from the Latin Vulgate, which was a Bible written by St. Jerome in the 4th century who knew how to speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.  The Bible was written to uphold Catholic traditions in the face of the Protestant Reformation, who ended up removing 7 books including parts of Esther and Daniel.  Our intention was never to change the Bible by removing some books or by using controversial translations as the Protestants did.   

QuoteChesterton, Galatians 1:6-9 gives some strong warnings about the Gospel received.

Forgive me if I don't understand your reply.  Are you saying that the reason the protestants kept the NT books unchanged as opposed to the OT books is that the NT is the "gospel" and using scripture as the base they decided not to change the "gospel" as if "the gospel" is synonymous with the NT books?  

If this is what you are saying then how do you view the canonization of the NT by the early church?

1.  When the NT epistles and the four gospels references scripture it refers to the Old Testament books.  

2.  When the early Church was in process of the canonization of the NT there were other epistles being called scripture that were in accordance with the Apostolic epistles and the four gospels such as the letters of St. Clement.  

3.  The "good news" was not necessarily synonymous with Holy Scripture.  Refer to Acts perhaps and see that they often referred to, The Way which was also not synonymous with Holy Scripture.  

Again, I apologize if I misread your reply.  

QuoteChesterton: I'll repeat this because I think it is important.   The bible is not doctrine.  Multiple doctrines  have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other.  Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.

...  and your reply

Quote
Islanddogs: Chesterton I did not say that the Bible was doctrine, I did say that an accumulation of passages around certain teachings helped to form the doctrines. For instance of Salvation. Ephesians 2:1-10. Of the Resurrection 1 Cor 15. On scripture (Law and Testimony) Isaiah 8:20 and Romans 2:14-15, there are others.

Again I am not sure if I am misreading your reply.  You are saying that an accumulation of passages around specific teachings helped to form doctrines.  However, are you talking about from a modern protestant perspective or something that is true not only of protestants but also the early Church?  

What makes me wonder about the implication of your reply is that the early Church did not formulate doctrine based* on an accumulation of passages, let alone did they derive their set of specific teachings from scripture.   I do not know if you are implying that because Holy Scripture taught on salvation, the Resurrection and Holy Scripture that this is why the early Church taught on salvation, the Resurrection and Holy Scripture.  

Holy Scripture does in fact speak about these topics but what Chesterton pointed out is that canonization is considered to be Holy in all traditions and yet there is no Holy Index and it is hard to derive the canon itself from the Holy Scriptures.  

QuoteSo the Bible has already given us Doctrine/teaching to follow, teaching comes from the greek didaskalia. The strongest evidence is Matthew 28:20, the Apostles and disciples were told to take the message about what they had already been taught.

What Chesterton points out is that if the bible is dispensing "doctrine/teaching" and you have a large myriad of contradictory interpretations of what those doctrines and teachings are and the bible is your only constitution then our justification in what each individual or group of individuals believe the constitution means to say is only self confirming.  

You have mentioned the word didaskalia but what of the word paradosis?  Tradition.  Can we derive paradosis from the Holy Scriptures as a means within itself?  Can we say with honesty that paradosis points to Holy Scripture and, in the cases where the word paradosis is used, not the other way around?  I do not believe that paradosis is a means within itself and, like Holy Scripture, also has it's base, not on the Holy Scriptures, but on the Church.  

Is it incorrect to say that the early Christian Church's set of doctrines and teachings are not based on or derived from Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition but instead the revelation of God as it was deposited into the very communities who received both the Holy Scriptures and Holy Traditions from the Holy Apostles? Did they not then use that experience to inform Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and determine which set of teachings were in fact teachings and which set of traditions were in fact Holy?  And does not Holy Scripture and Holy Paradosis affirm this reality that was already in place prior to both?


Thanks for replying islanddogs.  It is refreshing to have someone post in this forum who is non-combative and whose sincerity is made apparent.


ICXC NIKA

QuoteI'll repeat this because I think it is important.   The bible is not doctrine.  Multiple doctrines  have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other.  Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Jesus seems to be saying that that infallible guide is God, and that those who do His will, shall know the doctrine. 

1 Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

It seems, one cannot go wrong when following the instruction of the words of Jesus Christ.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Seems pretty clear to me. 

II Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Again, one cannot go wrong following the words and doctrines set forth by Christ.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Here is one a lot of people won't like.  Those who keep the commandments of God, are given the Spirit of truth.  I guess this is for the simple reason, that they obviously wish to submit to God's authority.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

You can't go wrong following the words of Jesus.  Obey His commandments, and He will manifest Himself to you.  He will give you the Comforter, who will bring to your remembrance His words.

John 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

God is infallible.  No man can stand in His place.  Anyone who tries to do so, is standing in the place of anti-Christ.