1 Timothy 3:15

[mmplps7783]

I have heard this from many of my Protestant friends.

If this is what Jesus had wanted, he would not have given the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But He did.

Jesus wants us to confess our sins to a priest not for His benefit, but for ours.

Just my :twocents:

May God bless!

You and JRKH make very good points that I had never thought of. First of all I thought you had to confess for EVERYTHING! If I said a bad word or told someone their dress looked nice when it really didn’t, I thought I needed to run to church right then and there. i guess I need to find out what a mortal sin is.

 

[mmplps7783]

As an aside to my earlier post.
I note in your profile that you say “NO RELIGION”.
Yet here mention “My Church”.
May I inquire to the structure of your church?
Does it have a pastor?
Does he preach?

Peace
James

I’m sorry that is the second time someone has asked me and I keep forgetting to edit my profile. My religion is Christianity. But I belong to no denomination. On Sundays I go with my husband to Catholic Church (when he decides he wants to go) and I go to my church (non-denominational, which is now considered a denomination). I like that church (after trying different ones for a year). I don’t feel out of place (I am bi-racial and my husband is hispanic so just imagine the looks we get at some “churches”), and no one looks at me wierd if I have had a rough week and feel the need to get on my knees and pray to God in the presence of fellow saints (I have 3 small kids and alone time is not really an option).

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry that is the second time someone has asked me and I keep forgetting to edit my profile. My religion is Christianity. But I belong to no denomination. On Sundays I go with my husband to Catholic Church (when he decides he wants to go) and I go to my church (non-denominational, which is now considered a denomination). I like that church (after trying different ones for a year). I don’t feel out of place (I am bi-racial and my husband is hispanic so just imagine the looks we get at some “churches”), and no one looks at me wierd if I have had a rough week and feel the need to get on my knees and pray to God in the presence of fellow saints (I have 3 small kids and alone time is not really an option).

MAY God bless your sincere efforts to seek after Him and to find HIm. Did you know that Timothy, one of the very first bishops was biracial?

 

[mmplps7783]

Since The Church is the Body of Christ present on earth and protected by the Holy Spirit your statement seems rather odd.
The Church has the authority to bind and loose.
The First Council at Jerusalem is a clear example of this.

I would like to see you explain just how you know and accept the bible as the Word of God.
Let’s assume for a minute that I am a non-christian and you wish to evangelize me. Now I happen to have an old bible that belonged to my Grandmother who happened to be catholic. In our discussions I note that there are different numbers of books in our two bibles.
This leads me to ask you the question, “How can two books named ‘The Holy bible’ have different numbers of books?” Something isn’t right here. How do I know, 1) Which of these Holy Bibles is the complete Word of God and/or 2) perhaps I shouldn’t accept either one as complete and/or correct since Christians cannot agree even on the number of books.

So in order to convince me that I should be Christian, based upon bible belief, you will need to convince me of the validity of the Bible - but not FROM the Bible since I am questioning it due to the varying numbers of books.

Peace
James

Can I answer this question PLEASE, can I, can I?

1. I have searched many religions (J.W.,Mor,Bap,Meth,Pent,…) trying to figure things out (I have serious trust issues) and with the grace of God I have found that alot of religions claim basically the same things (God is God , Jesus is His Son, Mary was a virgin…) but they had differences as well. I just noticed that these relgions were based (if not loosely) on the Holy Bible but with their own spin and taking certain verses out of context. So I figured that since the only common denominator is the Holy Bible it must be right. Whether it is the “complete word of God” I don’t %100 know this. I will explain it like this. If God were to ask you to go to the store and buy a cheesecake would you wast your time trying to figure out which kind, (cherry- Catholics,Strawbery-Protestants) or would you think, “God knows my heart and how much I want to please him so I will bring just that plain cheesecake (the Holy Bible)” ?

Even though some might feel the cheesecake analogy alittle crude I’m just trying to get my point across

 

[mmplps7783]

Now here’s a question for you all. Out of 72 original disciples that Jesus sent out to spread his word (athough Peter was the “rock” the others were given the same amount of authority right?..), what makes you believe that they didn’t lay hands on one (or more) of the runaways?

And may I also bring up Luke 9:49-50? What say ye to this?

 

[Seeking12]

Since The Church is the Body of Christ present on earth and protected by the Holy Spirit your statement seems rather odd.
The Church has the authority to bind and loose.
The First Council at Jerusalem is a clear example of this.

I would like to see you explain just how you know and accept the bible as the Word of God.
Let’s assume for a minute that I am a non-christian and you wish to evangelize me. Now I happen to have an old bible that belonged to my Grandmother who happened to be catholic. In our discussions I note that there are different numbers of books in our two bibles.
This leads me to ask you the question, “How can two books named ‘The Holy bible’ have different numbers of books?” Something isn’t right here. How do I know, 1) Which of these Holy Bibles is the complete Word of God and/or 2) perhaps I shouldn’t accept either one as complete and/or correct since Christians cannot agree even on the number of books.

So in order to convince me that I should be Christian, based upon bible belief, you will need to convince me of the validity of the Bible - but not FROM the Bible since I am questioning it due to the varying numbers of books.

Peace
James

**I would explain to them that during the reformation; the Catholic Church wanted to persecute the reformers; I would explain some of those objections the reformers had and how the Church pronounced anathemas against the movement in order to try to regain and retain their control. One of those actions was to add more books to the Bible, even though we know some and probably all are not inspired. For example 2 Maccabees, one book the Catholic Church, statements in this book support the Roman Catholic teachings on purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the intercessory work of glorified "saints.However; the writer of 2 Maccabees specifically said it was not inspired. So when you consider the timing and the motive you can conclude that the additional books were added under circumstances that were suspect at best.

Decree of the Council of Trent (1546). “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.” I would also add that the oldest copies of the Vulgate did not contain, what is referred to as The Apocryphal Books, they were added later, then the later version was accepted by the Catholic Church.

As far as showing that the Bible is inspired and infallible apart from what the Bible says; that would be impossible.**

 

[guanophore]

I would explain to them that during the reformation; the Catholic Church wanted to persecute the reformers;

Then you would be misrepresenting the truth. The Catholic Church did not want there to be any heresy. The Church has a duty to respond to heresy. This does not come from a desire to “persecute” but to clarify the Truth.

I would explain some of those objections the reformers had and how the Church pronounced anathemas against the movement in order to try to regain and retain their control.

If you did this, you would be misrepresenting the Truth. The purpose of an anathema has not changed from the first century until now. It is a warning to the offender that the soul is in jeapardy. The purpose is correction,and a desire to reunite one to the One Body of Christ.

One of those actions was to add more books to the Bible, even though we know some and probably all are not inspired. For example 2 Maccabees, one book the Catholic Church, statements in this book support the Roman Catholic teachings on purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the intercessory work of glorified "saints.However; the writer of 2 Maccabees specifically said it was not inspired.

You obviously have a lot to learn about your family history Seeking. When you look back over the history of the canon, you will find that all these books were in the collection used by Jesus and the Apostles. That is why they were adopted by the Church.

So when you consider the timing and the motive you can conclude that the additional books were added under circumstances that were suspect at best.

If indeed they were “added”, then I suppose one would have grounds to look at why. However, their inclusion was clarified because the Reformers attempted to justify removing them. But, if they were good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for us!

Decree of the Council of Trent (1546). “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.”

This statement alone should make it clear that the canon had not changed from the third century to the 16th.

I would also add that the oldest copies of the Vulgate did not contain, what is referred to as The Apocryphal Books, they were added later, then the later version was accepted by the Catholic Church.

I hope you will take this to one of the threads on the canon, where you may have your erroneous views corrected.

As far as showing that the Bible is inspired and infallible apart from what the Bible says; that would be impossible.

If this is true, then you have no justification for saying that the Bible you use is inspired.

 

[JRKH]

I would have to say that to some degree you are correct. But I believe Catholic Unity would still be a miracle. Too many “Protestants” feel like the Catholic Church is crooked and greedy. Not to mention idol worshipers. The Saints are a difficult matter to conquer.

We must hope that God moves individuals and non-catholic communites past the prejudices of the past into a new understanding of the ancient and venerable Church.
As you study and learn, you will undoubtedly find, as many have before, that the “stereotypes” fall away. Then you will be able to help educate others who labor under these false impressions as well. Thus will the spirit draw non-catholics closer home to the Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You and JRKH make very good points that I had never thought of. First of all I thought you had to confess for EVERYTHING! If I said a bad word or told someone their dress looked nice when it really didn’t, I thought I needed to run to church right then and there. i guess I need to find out what a mortal sin is.

Let me help you on this.
First of all here is a link to a searchable Catachism of the Catholic Church This may help you with future questions. (I use it a lot myself)
Secondly I did s quick search and found this:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

If you go **HERE **it will take you right to the section of the catachism discussing this. Scroll up or down for additional information.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’m sorry that is the second time someone has asked me and I keep forgetting to edit my profile. My religion is Christianity. But I belong to no denomination. On Sundays I go with my husband to Catholic Church (when he decides he wants to go) and I go to my church (non-denominational, which is now considered a denomination). I like that church (after trying different ones for a year). I don’t feel out of place (I am bi-racial and my husband is hispanic so just imagine the looks we get at some “churches”), and no one looks at me wierd if I have had a rough week and feel the need to get on my knees and pray to God in the presence of fellow saints (I have 3 small kids and alone time is not really an option).

Thanks.
Yes I can see where you would feel at home in the more “unstructured” environment of the non-denominational church. Three little ones certainly makes for a interesting life. In a sense I have one “Little One” since my Dear Wife is Stage 6 Alzheimers. I have her in day care right now or I wouldn’t be able to sit at the computer like this. So Know what you mean about “alone time”.
For now, just keep studying and learning, and definately praying.
It’s nice to talk with you about these things and I’m glad we are being some help to you.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Can I answer this question PLEASE, can I, can I?

1. I have searched many religions (J.W.,Mor,Bap,Meth,Pent,…) trying to figure things out (I have serious trust issues) and with the grace of God I have found that alot of religions claim basically the same things (God is God , Jesus is His Son, Mary was a virgin…) but they had differences as well. I just noticed that these relgions were based (if not loosely) on the Holy Bible but with their own spin and taking certain verses out of context. So I figured that since the only common denominator is the Holy Bible it must be right. Whether it is the “complete word of God” I don’t %100 know this. I will explain it like this. If God were to ask you to go to the store and buy a cheesecake would you wast your time trying to figure out which kind, (cherry- Catholics,Strawbery-Protestants) or would you think, “God knows my heart and how much I want to please him so I will bring just that plain cheesecake (the Holy Bible)” ?

Even though some might feel the cheesecake analogy alittle crude I’m just trying to get my point across

But my point was “Which Bible if any?”
If we have 2 books, both entitled, “Holy Bible” and both claiming to be the complete and innerant Word of God, Why different numbers of books? It flies in the face of “Complete and innerant”.
they are different, only one can be the true - “Complete and innerant” Word of God.
So which one is it? The one with fewer books or the one with more books?
How do I Choose?
By What Authority do I decide?
Or should I just chuck the whole thing as a waste of time since Christians can’t prove and protect their own “Word of God”?

See the dilemma?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I would explain to them that during the reformation; the Catholic Church wanted to persecute the reformers; I would explain some of those objections the reformers had and how the Church pronounced anathemas against the movement in order to try to regain and retain their control. One of those actions was to add more books to the Bible, even though we know some and probably all are not inspired. For example 2 Maccabees, one book the Catholic Church, statements in this book support the Roman Catholic teachings on purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the intercessory work of glorified "saints.However; the writer of 2 Maccabees specifically said it was not inspired. So when you consider the timing and the motive you can conclude that the additional books were added under circumstances that were suspect at best.

Decree of the Council of Trent (1546). “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.” I would also add that the oldest copies of the Vulgate did not contain, what is referred to as The Apocryphal Books, they were added later, then the later version was accepted by the Catholic Church.

So I, being a somewhat intelligent person and being concerned about my salvation, ask a family member who is still catholic about this. They explain that your information is wrong and demonstrate to me that the 72 book canon dates, not to the council of Trent in 1546, but rather back to the councils of Hippo and Cathage at around 390-400 AD. Not only that, but this 72 book canon was reaffirmed by Church councils several times BEFORE the reformation.
So now your arguments are on shaky ground.

As far as showing that the Bible is inspired and infallible apart from what the Bible says; that would be impossible.

To which my response would be that, since you cannot prove the Bible’s authority from outside the Bible, I can only conclude that it is just as valid as the Koran or the Book of Mormon, both of which also validate themselves.

You see the problem my friend? You are asking me to accept “The Bible”, not because of what “The Bible” is, but rather for what You Tell Me It Is".
The Bible cannot prove itself any more convincingly than the other books I mentioned. Therefore we must rely on something other than the text for that Authority.
In the case of the Bible, that authority is founded in the Catholic Church which assembled the canon of the Bible. In fact, Martin Luther himself grants this fact. He said that we (Reformers) owe much to the Catholic Church for without the Church we would not even have the Holy Scriptures for is the Catholic church who has given them to us. (somewhat paraphrased)

Peace
James

 

[broski234]

So I, being a somewhat intelligent person and being concerned about my salvation, ask a family member who is still catholic about this. They explain that your information is wrong and demonstrate to me that the 72 book canon dates, not to the council of Trent in 1546, but rather back to the councils of Hippo and Cathage at around 390-400 AD. Not only that, but this 72 book canon was reaffirmed by Church councils several times BEFORE the reformation.
So now your arguments are on shaky ground.

To which my response would be that, since you cannot prove the Bible’s authority from outside the Bible, I can only conclude that it is just as valid as the Koran or the Book of Mormon, both of which also validate themselves.

You see the problem my friend? You are asking me to accept “The Bible”, not because of what “The Bible” is, but rather for what You Tell Me It Is".
The Bible cannot prove itself any more convincingly than the other books I mentioned. Therefore we must rely on something other than the text for that Authority.
In the case of the Bible, that authority is founded in the Catholic Church which assembled the canon of the Bible. In fact, Martin Luther himself grants this fact. He said that we (Reformers) owe much to the Catholic Church for without the Church we would not even have the Holy Scriptures for is the Catholic church who has given them to us. (somewhat paraphrased)

Peace
James

Bingo! Nice response.

 

[Junebug999]

Michael Voris (God Bless him) has said: Satan doesn’t care if you go to hell either by disbelief or MISbelief.

We can thank God for being led to his Church, his representative on earth.

 

[Seeking12]

So I, being a somewhat intelligent person and being concerned about my salvation, ask a family member who is still catholic about this. They explain that your information is wrong and demonstrate to me that the 72 book canon dates, not to the council of Trent in 1546, but rather back to the councils of Hippo and Cathage at around 390-400 AD. Not only that, but this 72 book canon was reaffirmed by Church councils several times BEFORE the reformation.
So now your arguments are on shaky ground.

To which my response would be that, since you cannot prove the Bible’s authority from outside the Bible, I can only conclude that it is just as valid as the Koran or the Book of Mormon, both of which also validate themselves.

You see the problem my friend? You are asking me to accept “The Bible”, not because of what “The Bible” is, but rather for what You Tell Me It Is".
The Bible cannot prove itself any more convincingly than the other books I mentioned. Therefore we must rely on something other than the text for that Authority.
In the case of the Bible, that authority is founded in the Catholic Church which assembled the canon of the Bible. In fact, Martin Luther himself grants this fact. He said that we (Reformers) owe much to the Catholic Church for without the Church we would not even have the Holy Scriptures for is the Catholic church who has given them to us. (somewhat paraphrased)

Peace
James

**You can play the fool all you want; makes no difference to me. Your logic is skewed. For you use the very book to try to prove your own faith. The Bible is a living book because it is the very word of God; God breathed. Is not what is God breathed alive? In a spiritual sense. The Bible can validate itself on many fronts; for example the over 300 prophecies on the coming and life of Jesus, no one could predict that with 100% accuracy unless it came from God. You have a low view of Scripture; as do many …but that will be to their demise. I would go as far to say that where salvation begins is how you view Scripture.

At first, the Septuagint (LXX) consisted only of the Pentateuch (Torah, first five books of the Bible). Different books were translated from the Hebrew over a span of two centuries, including the books of the Apocrypha, and were added to the LXX. Since the Greek used in the LXX reflects an Alexandrian origin, the scholars who created it were most likely Alexandrian rather than Palestinian, as was suggested by a legend circulated by a writer who called himself Aristeas.

Here is a link that is outside of the Church:
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm**

 

[JRKH]

You can play the fool all you want; makes no difference to me.

Why do you see me as “playing a fool”. I have asked you valid questions that I have asked other “Bible Believing Christians”. These are also questions I asked myself during the time I was away from the Church. It was the answers to these questions that led me back into the Catholic Church.

Your logic is skewed.

Which logic is that? Please explain.

For you use the very book to try to prove your own faith.

Of course we do. However, we can have that confidence because we know from where the book came and how it came into being. Plus we have the blessing of Christ’s Own Church with nearly 2000 years of teaching to rely on for accurate translation and interpretation.

The Bible is a living book because it is the very word of God; God breathed. Is not what is God breathed alive? In a spiritual sense. The Bible can validate itself on many fronts; for example the over 300 prophecies on the coming and life of Jesus, no one could predict that with 100% accuracy unless it came from God.

The very same thing can be said for a work of fiction. The Koran validates itself with 100 percent accuracy too. Do you accept it? Of course you don’t. Neither do I. I accept the Bible. But I accept the Bible upon the Authority of the Church, founded by Christ, which holds that it is God’s Word and Sacred.

You have a low view of Scripture; as do many …but that will be to their demise. I would go as far to say that where salvation begins is how you view Scripture.

It is interesting that when I pose these questions, I get accused of this. But this is not the case.
My suspicion is that, since you have no valid answers to the points I raise, you need attack my view of Scripture as somehow deficiant. You fall back on the argument that I must accept the Bible because YOU say so. Thus you can keep me under your control and how you interpret Scripture. Sound suspiciously like something you would accuse the Catholic Church of doing. hmmmmm.

Sorry - I won’t work.
I revere Scripture. I love the Bible. Just as I Love God, Christ and His Church - and you my friend in Christ.

Here is a link that is outside of the Church:
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

Thanks for the link, but I have already been down the road of research in this area.
The results? (From when I was not catholic) -
Christ founded a Church which He gave Authority.
Using that Authority Christ’s Church assembled the Book we know as “The Bible”
It is by the Authority of Christ’s Church that these books - and not others - are declared to be “God Breathed”.

May God Bless you with enlightenment

Peace
James

 

[DavWan]

Seeking12,

How can you prove the miracles were not added later? If you want to appeal to the Bible alone, how do you prove it to those who deny it is inspired?

We Catholics have literary and theological reasons besides our belief that the Bible was inspired.

So far you only have: The Bible is inspired because God said so and God is holy because the Bible said so.

This is arguing in a circle, and you will win no converts this way until you can also appeal to their reason.

Unbelievers won’t believe in the Bible supernaturally if they can’t have answers to their other troubles with it.

So tell us… how do you help the unbeliever to believe the Bible is true when they don’t believe in miracles or God?

Catholics have an answer. Do you?

 

[Seeking12]

Seeking12,

How can you prove the miracles were not added later? If you want to appeal to the Bible alone, how do you prove it to those who deny it is inspired?

We Catholics have literary and theological reasons besides our belief that the Bible was inspired.

So far you only have: The Bible is inspired because God said so and God is holy because the Bible said so.

This is arguing in a circle, and you will win no converts this way until you can also appeal to their reason.

Unbelievers won’t believe in the Bible supernaturally if they can’t have answers to their other troubles with it.

So tell us… how do you help the unbeliever to believe the Bible is true when they don’t believe in miracles or God?

Catholics have an answer. Do you?

**I can’t help an unbeliever to believe just like you can’t; that is the work of God…further evidence that God is the author. How would you prove Noah had an ark? I don’t know.

If you want to read an interesting sermon on titled “The Amazing Truth of the Bible”; it might give some insight.
gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1345

Also; “Why We Believe the Bible is True”
[Why We Believe the Bible Is True

An additional thought; a vast majority of humans do not believe the Bible; so what. I believe it is true because I have read it and experienced what it says.](http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-321)**

 

[wisdomseeker]

**I can’t help an unbeliever to believe just like you can’t; that is the work of God…further evidence that God is the author. How would you prove Noah had an ark? I don’t know.

If you want to read an interesting sermon on titled “The Amazing Truth of the Bible”; it might give some insight.
gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1345**

Also; “Why We Believe the Bible is True”
[Why We Believe the Bible Is True

An additional thought; a vast majority of humans do not believe the Bible; so what. I believe it is true because I have read it and experienced what it says.](http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-321)

yes, it is very enlightening to hear about the Bible from somebody who is also mislead.

tell me, why do you think that this man understands the Word of God but the CC doesnt?

:byzsoc:

 

[Seeking12]

yes, it is very enlightening to hear about the Bible from somebody who is also mislead.

tell me, why do you think that this man understands the Word of God but the CC doesnt?

:byzsoc:

You will know them by their fruits; you would do well to listen to someone who knows the word of God as John MacArthur does. He has suffered many trials and has been faithful to the Word his entire life in the preaching, teaching and the way he has lived his life. Of course that is my opinion, but I God will prove the truth of my opinion; I look forward to fellowship with John MacArthur in heaven. There are about 8-10K former Catholics that would testify to that truth.