Catholicism (Authority, Succession, and Baptism)

  • Thread starter Thread starter dbacks5439
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SoonerServant said:
Show me where it says some will need more cleansing than others?
Click to expand...
It is just simple logic.

Some of us who are going to Heaven have sinned more than others. Some have more attachment to sin than others so they have more to be removed by God.

If you have 10000 sins endancies and I have 100100 sins and tendancies to sin one of us has more to be removed. I know I am quite a sinner and there are probably some people who are going to heaven who have sinned less than me.

God Bless
Scylla
 
I’m sorry, but you just made an assumption outside of the scriptures. If we are going to use the scriptures to prove a point, then we can’t make assumptions outside of them.
 
I just thought yo umight have been talking about all the saints you guys have.
 
This is what I mean when I say the “traditions” of men in the Roman Catholic church. They just assumed something and made it doctrine.
 
SoonerServant said:
I’m sorry, but you just made an assumption outside out the scriptures. If we are going to use the scriptures to prove a point, then we can’t make assumptions outside of them.
Click to expand...
As you just have, which is faulty logic. If you are going to go outside of Scripture to make an assumption then you should stick to your own rules.

Principals on the other hand are different than assumptions.

Didn’t God give us brains to add 1+1=2 or since that isn’t in Scripture then we cannot believe it?
Since Sooner Servant isn’t in Scripture should I even be talking to you?

We have brains to put Scripture together, but since you insist, here we go… I gladly quote some Scripture for you from the Holy Bible…

Heb 11
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the ason of Pharaoh’s daughter;
25 Choosing rather to asuffer affliction with the bpeople of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

So Moses chose not to sin, which means that we can sin and do either sin or don’t
Does everyone live the exact same amount of years as Moses and choose to not sin or sin like he did.
No
So we all have different amount of sin.

God Bless
Scylla
 
The bible never said that we had different amounts of sin. By the way, you are getting close to insanity by saying if I’m not in the bible, I don’t exsist. I am talking about the shear absense of something from scripture, while you are talking about the exsistence of a tangible and visible object. If you reject my exsistence on those grounds, then perhaps God didn’t bless you with the brain you just boasted about.
 
You are trying to add 2+0 and get 4. I don’t see the other 2 anywhere.
 
Would you like to start a new thread, soon you are going to stop getting replies as after a few pages people kinda start to ignore threads…

I am going to bed, if you would like more replies I suggest you start a new thread Sooner. It was enjoyable discussing the faith with you.

May God bless you,
Scylla
 
SoonerServant said:
dbacks was asking if I would look at some scriptures from other books that aren’t found in my bible about purgatory.
Click to expand...
You mean this? 2nd Maccabees 12:39-45

39: On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40: Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
41: So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Remember I told you that the Jews believe in a Purgatory even to this day? Well, now you see part of the reason why.
Pax tecum,
 
SoonerServant said:
This is what I mean when I say the “traditions” of men in the Roman Catholic church. They just assumed something and made it doctrine.
Click to expand...
Bunk…that is your opinion, and it is without factual basis. Just because you do not know or understand something by no means mean that we Catholics “made it up”.

It would help a lot if you’d bother to use the quote feature so that we can easily see what post you are responding to.

For every Catholic belief that you can name, I can provide a scriptural basis for it and show that the early church believed the same things.
 
SoonerServant said:
Apostlic Authority died with the Apostles. Do you believe in speaking in tongues today?
Click to expand...
No I don’t believe in tongues. But the early church had leaders who had authority over the church. Where are those leders today.

Also, who had authority to put together the New Testament? The NT as we have it today wasn’t formally set until centuries after the last Apostle died. So how do we know, using the “Bible Alone,” that the Biblle is actually the Bible?
 
SoonerServant said:
Saying,"…and on this rock I will build my church." implies that Peter is literally a rock. Surely you don’t think peter was a rock. Perhaps what He meant was that Peter had faith like a rock and on that faith he would establish his church. There isn’t more than one kind of faith. Faith is a universal characteristic. He wasn’t talking about Peter or “Peter’s faith”, but the faith of anyone who believes.
Click to expand...
You haven’t actually said what Church you belong to. Is your interpretation of scripture your own private one or that of your Church?

You might want to have a look at the article in the link. It gives a sample of Protestant Churches beliefs on Peter the Rock.

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp

and now a Catholic comment:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp
 
SoonerServant said:
The bible never said that we had different amounts of sin. By the way, you are getting close to insanity by saying if I’m not in the bible, I don’t exsist. I am talking about the shear absense of something from scripture, while you are talking about the exsistence of a tangible and visible object. If you reject my exsistence on those grounds, then perhaps God didn’t bless you with the brain you just boasted about.
Click to expand...
So do you have the exact same amount of sin everyone else has? That’s impossible. Lets say you live 50 years and someone lives 90 do you have the exact same amount seriousness and attachment to sin?

I was showing the absurdity of holding that any truth needs to be proved from the Bible. And maybe God did not bless me with a huge amount of wisdom, yet even I can recognize simple truths such as the fact that we don’t all do the same actions throughout our lives for different amounts of time.

Does the absence of something in Scripture mean that it does not exist? This is my point, I do realize that you do exist, please think about this for just a moment.
This is a very important, please look at this seriously…
Does the absence of you knowing of the existence of something in Scripture determine that it isn’t essential to your faith?

Most everyone has clearly answered your posts I would invite you to start a new thread and pick a certain topic which we can stick to.

In Christ
Scylla

I actually stated truth, and as an example stated that 1+1=2 and we can know that, I never stated something like 2+0=4, this is a misrepresentation. If you do not see the rest of the proof it would be 2+x=4 and you would be contesting the existence not the presentation of a false conclusion. If x indeed equals 2 then it is a valid conclusion, regardless if you see the evidence or not.
 
scylla said:
I actually stated truth, and as an example stated that 1+1=2 and we can know that, I never stated something like 2+0=4, this is a misrepresentation. If you do not see the rest of the proof it would be 2+x=4 and you would be contesting the existence not the presentation of a false conclusion. If x indeed equals 2 then it is a valid conclusion, regardless if you see the evidence or not.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I used the number “0” to represent the lack of evidence. “0” meaning nothing’s there.😃

There is no,“finding the rest of the proof.” It isn’t there.
 
Why don’t we start a new thread…

I am stating that it is a fact that people have different amounts of sin\attachments to sin when they die.
I don’t know why you deny it or even the evidence for it but I would be happy to discuss this.

Regarding the 2+x statement,(x=0 or 2) just because you do not agree with the logical proof does not make it a fact. Your denial does not end the discussion it just means that you deny the existence of positive evidence. I would contest that you deny the existence of x and I affirm it. My premise holds if I affirm the existence regardless if you agree or not, unless you can prove the negative. Then proving the non-existence of x would be your goal. Your opinion really is of no consequence, what is important is objective fact.

I will start a thread later on today if I get a chance if not tomorrow if you would like…

God Bless
Scylla
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top