"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[Nathan_Wagar]

**Sorry Ed. Went to confession then took the wifey out to dinner and that Michael Jackson movie.

Benedictus, thank you for clarifying your position, I also particularly enjoyed your point about Ed’s definition of salvation. Steve, thank you for your clarification. I inserted the wrong name while typing and apparently that caused some confusion. I apologize Ed. Now to answer your post 682. I will not be responding to 683 because Steve cleared up the misunderstanding:**

“Nathan, BALONEY! What you try to do here is to try to make my belief unique from other Protestants. Which is False. Something you can’t prove. That’s one of your intimidation methods that you use when you are caught.” RESPONSE: You’re wrong Ed. Lutherans, factions of the Anglican Church, Russian and Greek Orthodox, Church of Christ, (along with Christian Church and Disciples of Christ), and Oneness Pentecostals all hold the view of baptismal regeneration. They may not agree on all points on Catholic dogma, but they all agree that regeneration takes place with the Holy Spirit through water baptism. Stop making yourself sound ridiculous. You don’t speak for “mainline” Protestantism. How would you define that anyway?

“Majority of Christians” doesn’t faze me. What you really mean is the majority of Catholics believe in baptism regeneration because much of them believe what they are told and never read the Bible. Jesus said, Mat 7:14,“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it.” You make statements, I present Scripture.
RESPONSE: "That seems a pretty presumptuous statement to make, Ed. I read the Bible quite often and quite well. I think I’m demonstrating that so far. Don’t attempt to speak on “most” other Catholics unless you personally know “most” other Catholics and how often they read the Bible. And I have probably presented more Scripture, Old and New, than you have through this debate. Your issue is that you don’t respond to most of it, so I feel no need to do more than refer back to it in statements. This is your issue, not mine.

“I never said that or even implied such NONSENSE. Again, you are trying to belittle me.” RESPONSE: No, it’s common sense Ed. Thousands of denominations, only one Holy Spirit, only one can be right. You seem to think it’s yours. 1+1 = 2, Ed. I don’t have to belittle you, your ridiculous attacks on Catholics not reading the Bible do that for me. When you resort to more low-level attacks, it makes me think you are running out of intelligent responses, which are in short supply as of late.

“My church started with the apostles you have no exclusive right to them. Millions by the millions came OUT because of the corruption. That’s history. Only the Bible is infallible because it’s God inspired. It took your church until 1850 A.D. to proclaim infallibility, Why did it take so long to determine such an important issue? You have the right to believe anything your church teaches, I have the right to believe what the Word of God teaches, which isn’t tainted by man.” RESPONSE: The apostles taught people directly. These bishops then wrote what they were taught. If my beliefs match up with theirs and yours do not, then guess what Ed? You don’t have claim over them. You have a recent perversion of the gospel, nothing more. Millions upon millions did not leave the Catholic Church, Ed, millions were born into the faith of the much smaller number that did in fact leave. Big difference. As for the Bible, the Church decided what went into that Bible, Ed. I suppose you extracted that infallible juice from the fallible orange? Infallibility as such was defined late. If you were properly catechized, you would understand the nature of the defining of Dogma. If you would like me to show you early Church quotes that sound verbatim like infallibility before it was even defined, I’d be happy to provide them. Trinity was defined a few hundred years later. Is the idea of the Trinity true, Ed? Hey wait a minute, why DO you believe in the trinity? It sounds so very…Catholic…

Nathan , you keep referring to my denomination. Did I ever tell you what it is? NO! ED O.
RESPONSE: Because you have a denomination, Ed. Protestant denominations do not agree. And if you do not have a denomination, that’s even better, because then we are relying on the interpretation of Ed, and so I would have infinitely less reason to accept your opinion.

 

[benedictus2]

“Majority of Christians” doesn’t faze me. What you really mean is the majority of Catholics believe in baptism regeneration because much of them believe what they are told and never read the Bible.

What majority of Catholics believe does not determine what Catholic belief is. And this is where Protestants and Catholics differ. We have a magisterium that determines what sound doctrine is. Even if 70% percent of Catholics believed divorce is okay, divorce will still not be allowed by the Church.

Oh and by the way, even if a Catholic never ever read the Bible, if he goes to Mass every day, in a span of 3 years, he would have heard the entire Bible proclaimed.

Daily mass has 3 readings: 1 from the OT or Epistles, 1 from the Psalms and 1 from the Gospels.

Sunday mass: 4 readings: 1 from the OT, 1 from the Epistles or Acts/Rev, Psalms then the Gospel.

Easter Vigil has around 7 readings.

Can you say that you do this much in your Sunday service?

Furthermore, the readings are so arranged to bring out the correlation between the OT and the NT to show that the New is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New.

My church started with the apostles you have no exclusive right to them.

Since you have not stated what your religion is then we cannot believe you.

Millions by the millions came OUT because of the corruption. That’s history.

And according to Luther himself, the protestants were worse than the papists that they hoped to reform . .

Only the Bible is infallible because it’s God inspired.

Aah but how do you know that the Bible is indeed God inspired? On what do you base that belief?

It took your church until 1850 A.D. to proclaim infallibility, Why did it take so long to determine such an important issue?

A doctrine is only defined when it is questioned.

You have the right to believe anything your church teaches, I have the right to believe what the Word of God teaches, which isn’t tainted by man.

But who determined that the Bible is indeed the Word of God? You will not have the Bible were it not for the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that wrote the Bible and determined which books are to be included in the canon.

You have probably not extended your thinking this far but by agreeing that the Bible is infallible, you are actually agreeing that the Catholic Church is infallible.

 

[twinc]

This whole issue revolves around a misunderstanding that Nicodemus was a Jew and not a Christian.As already baptised Christians we do not need to be born again as required of Nicodemus - twinc

 

[onenow1]

This whole issue revolves around a misunderstanding that Nicodemus was a Jew and not a Christian.As already baptised Christians we do not need to be born again as required of Nicodemus - twinc

=onenow1, Excellent insight !!

Peace and God Bless
onenow1

 

[benedictus2]

This whole issue revolves around a misunderstanding that Nicodemus was a Jew and not a Christian.As already baptised Christians we do not need to be born again as required of Nicodemus - twinc

I think the question here is not whether we need to be “born again” since we have already been baptized but whether baptism by water is a pre-requisite to being “born again”.

 

[zach_dunn]

I think the question here is not whether we need to be “born again” since we have already been baptized but whether baptism by water is a pre-requisite to being “born again”.

I would go further saying the real question is whether or not baptism and being “born again” are the same thing, but you guys know where I stand on that subject.

 

[benedictus2]

I would go further saying the real question is whether or not baptism and being “born again” are the same thing, but you guys know where I stand on that subject.

And of we need to bear in mind as well that Christ never said that we must be "born again’ but He did say we have to be baptized.

And all due to a mistranslation in some Bibles.

 

[zach_dunn]

And of we need to bear in mind as well that Christ never said that we must be "born again’ but He did say we have to be baptized.

And all due to a mistranslation in some Bibles.

I’m sure Ed would argue that Jesus demands that we be born again in Jn 3:3, I find it kind of funny that this is the only instance in the Bible where anyone is told to be born again, but several, several times people are told to be baptized, why do Protestants have such a hard time making the connection?

 

[zach_dunn]

I’m sure Ed would argue that Jesus demands that we be born again in Jn 3:3, I find it kind of funny that this is the only instance in the Bible where anyone is told to be born again, but several, several times people are told to be baptized, why do Protestants have such a hard time making the connection?

Correction: We are actually told to be born again 3 times [Jn 3:3,5,7]; you might be able to say four times if you count 1 Pet 1:23, but even with that we are told to be baptized many more times.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Benedictus2
On post 688, I said, “while the belief in Jesus’ Blood is what atoned for the sins, —Your Response: Wrong Again, “the belief in Jesus’ blood is NOT what atoned for the sins. Jesus atoned for the sins.”

In order for you to have a better understanding as to why only BLOOD is used for the atoning of sins. please read and study the following chronology:

IN THE O. T. ANIMAL’S BLOOD----N. T. JESUS’ BLOOD FORGIVES SINS!

God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. (a) Substitutionary death (b) Blood for atonement (a) Instead of people dying because of sin, in the O. T. animals were substituted. In the N. T. Jesus is substituted. (b) in the O. T. animal’s blood for atonement, N. T. Jesus’ Blood does so.

AS FOLLOWS: Adam & Eve were re-clothed from leaves to with animal’s skins. WHY? Animals died/blood. From Moses’ time Animals died/blood N. T. Jesus our Lamb died /Blood. Mat. 26:28, Jesus said, ”This is my BLOOD of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the FORGIVENESS of sins.”

Acts 20:28, “—church of God which He bought with His BLOOD.”----Rom. 3:25, “God presented Him as a sacrifice—through faith in His BLOOD.”----Rom. 5:9, “Since we have now been justified by His BLOOD–.”----Eph. 1:7, “In Him we have redemption through His BLOOD.”---- Eph. 2:13, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the BLOOD of Christ.”----Col. 1:20, “—by making peace through His BLOOD shed on the cross.“ ----Heb. 9:12, Jesus, “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own BLOOD.”----Heb. 9:22, “Without the shedding of blood there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins.” Heb. 10:19, As a result, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus.”----1 Pet. 1:19, We were not redeemed by silver or gold, “but with the precious BLOOD of Christ, a Lamb without blemish or defect.”----Rev. 1:5, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His BLOOD.”----Rev. 7:14, “ These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the BLOOD of the Lamb.”

PLEASE NOTE; Jesus above did not say, “This is my BLOOD and WATER BAPTISM of the new covenant, which is poured out for the FORGIVENESS of sins.---- PLEASE NOTE: the past tense we were bought, redeemed, justified, freed of sins by the BLOOD-

In the O. T. they had original sins too, where they baptized? NO! They entered the community by circumcision. In the N. T. Baptism is exactly what John says it does, he ought to know why God sent him Mat 3:11, “I baptize you with water for REPENTANCE. 1Pet 3:21,"----a pledge of a good conscience towards God."

OF COURSE God wants us to be baptized, He even commands it but it’s to show our desire to start a new life in Christ repentance and our entrance to the Christian faith, and what is said above.

As you can see starting with Adam & Eve, BLOOD is the ONLY atonement for sins required by God as Heb 9:22, states, “without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins. -----Why then is Peter in Acts 2:38 saying be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins? Is there a contradiction? NO and there can‘t be! Peter combines, repent, belief in Jesus and baptism all lumped together into one statement. In v41 “Those who accepted his message (what message? The gospel of Jesus) were baptized. Their sins were forgiven by the belief in the gospel not the baptism In v37 the people were cut to heart by the message.-

Paul in Acts 22:16, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, CALLING ON HIS NAME. It’s the calling on His name that washes sins away. Sins aren’t physical that can be washed away, they have to be confessed an act of repentance.-----1 Pet. 3:21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the PLEDGE of a good conscience toward God.” It’s the pledge of good conscience (repentance turning to God) is what baptism does.–

TO SUMMARIZE: Nowhere in the entire Bible are sins forgiven by any other means accept through BLOOD. ED O.

 

[panevino]

Benedictus2
On post 688, I said, “while the belief in Jesus’ Blood is what atoned for the sins, —Your Response: Wrong Again, “the belief in Jesus’ blood is NOT what atoned for the sins. Jesus atoned for the sins.”

In order for you to have a better understanding as to why only BLOOD is used for the atoning of sins. please read and study the following chronology:

IN THE O. T. ANIMAL’S BLOOD----N. T. JESUS’ BLOOD FORGIVES SINS!

God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. (a) Substitutionary death (b) Blood for atonement (a) Instead of people dying because of sin, in the O. T. animals were substituted. In the N. T. Jesus is substituted. (b) in the O. T. animal’s blood for atonement, N. T. Jesus’ Blood does so.

AS FOLLOWS: Adam & Eve were re-clothed from leaves to with animal’s skins. WHY? Animals died/blood. From Moses’ time Animals died/blood N. T. Jesus our Lamb died /Blood. Mat. 26:28, Jesus said, ”This is my BLOOD of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the FORGIVENESS of sins.”

Acts 20:28, “—church of God which He bought with His BLOOD.”----Rom. 3:25, “God presented Him as a sacrifice—through faith in His BLOOD.”----Rom. 5:9, “Since we have now been justified by His BLOOD–.”----Eph. 1:7, “In Him we have redemption through His BLOOD.”---- Eph. 2:13, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the BLOOD of Christ.”----Col. 1:20, “—by making peace through His BLOOD shed on the cross.“ ----Heb. 9:12, Jesus, “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own BLOOD.”----Heb. 9:22, “Without the shedding of blood there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins.” Heb. 10:19, As a result, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus.”----1 Pet. 1:19, We were not redeemed by silver or gold, “but with the precious BLOOD of Christ, a Lamb without blemish or defect.”----Rev. 1:5, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His BLOOD.”----Rev. 7:14, “ These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the BLOOD of the Lamb.”

PLEASE NOTE; Jesus above did not say, “This is my BLOOD and WATER BAPTISM of the new covenant, which is poured out for the FORGIVENESS of sins.---- PLEASE NOTE: the past tense we were bought, redeemed, justified, freed of sins by the BLOOD-

In the O. T. they had original sins too, where they baptized? NO! They entered the community by circumcision. In the N. T. Baptism is exactly what John says it does, he ought to know why God sent him Mat 3:11, “I baptize you with water for REPENTANCE. 1Pet 3:21,"----a pledge of a good conscience towards God."

OF COURSE God wants us to be baptized, He even commands it but it’s to show our desire to start a new life in Christ repentance and our entrance to the Christian faith, and what is said above.

As you can see starting with Adam & Eve, BLOOD is the ONLY atonement for sins required by God as Heb 9:22, states, “without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins. -----Why then is Peter in Acts 2:38 saying be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins? Is there a contradiction? NO and there can‘t be! Peter combines, repent, belief in Jesus and baptism all lumped together into one statement. In v41 “Those who accepted his message (what message? The gospel of Jesus) were baptized. Their sins were forgiven by the belief in the gospel not the baptism In v37 the people were cut to heart by the message.-

Paul in Acts 22:16, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, CALLING ON HIS NAME. It’s the calling on His name that washes sins away. Sins aren’t physical that can be washed away, they have to be confessed an act of repentance.-----1 Pet. 3:21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the PLEDGE of a good conscience toward God.” It’s the pledge of good conscience (repentance turning to God) is what baptism does.–

TO SUMMARIZE: Nowhere in the entire Bible are sins forgiven by any other means accept through BLOOD. ED O.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5914977&postcount=685

 

[benedictus2]

Correction: We are actually told to be born again 3 times [Jn 3:3,5,7]; you might be able to say four times if you count 1 Pet 1:23, but even with that we are told to be baptized many more times.

Actually those verses where Jesus says you must be born again is a mistranslation. Jesus said you must be “born from above” which Nicodemus misunderstands to mean 'born again" because the greek word for these two are the same. But we know that Jesus meant “from above” based on the rest of the discourse in this chaptef.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2
On post 688, I said, “while the belief in Jesus’ Blood is what atoned for the sins, —Your Response: Wrong Again, “the belief in Jesus’ blood is NOT what atoned for the sins. Jesus atoned for the sins.”

In order for you to have a better understanding as to why only BLOOD is used for the atoning of sins. please read and study the following chronology:

I completely understand the use of blood and the significance of blood in atonement and the historical basis in Judaism.

But it is NOT the blood that atoned for our sins, Jesus by the shedding of his blood atoned for our sins. Blood cannot / does not atone but is used in atonement. Only Persons can atone.

So to re-iterate it is not “the belief in Jesus’s blood that atones for the sins” but rather Jesus who atoned for our sins by shedding his blood.

 

[zach_dunn]

So to re-iterate it is not “the belief in Jesus’s blood that atones for the sins” but rather Jesus who atoned for our sins by shedding his blood.

If this is what Ed really meant and really believes, wouldn’t he being saying that his own belief or faith is what atones for his sins? Wouldn’t it be saying something he does is what really atones for his sins? I get this conclusion from the wording, if it is taken literally, it would mean that people that don’t believe don’t have their sins atoned for, but that’s completely false . . . so what’s up Ed?

 

[zach_dunn]

Actually those verses where Jesus says you must be born again is a mistranslation. Jesus said you must be “born from above” which Nicodemus misunderstands to mean 'born again" because the greek word for these two are the same. But we know that Jesus meant “from above” based on the rest of the discourse in this chaptef.

I’ve heard this several times but I’ve never really understood what the difference between “born from above” and “born again” is; I know that the way Nicodemus understood born again is physical birth, but isn’t the Protestant idea of “born again” basically equivalent to “born from above?” Does the translation “born from above” help the Catholic position in any way?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by benedictus2
What majority of Catholics believe does not determine what Catholic belief is. And this is where Protestants and Catholics differ. We have a magisterium that determines what sound doctrine is. Even if 70% percent of Catholics believed divorce is okay, divorce will still not be allowed by the Church

Why would anyone need the magisterium to tell them what the Bibles so clearly states about divorce. Since so many Catholics left the church and disregarded what you call sound doctrine on divorce, it appears that the magisterium changed their minds and now call it annullment. Same thing different name.

Oh and by the way, even if a Catholic never ever read the Bible, if he goes to Mass every day, in a span of 3 years, he would have heard the entire Bible proclaimed

You hit the nail right on the head. Most or a good many Catholics don’t read the Bible, I hardly think that’s Jesus’ aproved method or 2Tim 3:16’s method of studying God’s Word.

Daily mass has 3 readings: 1 from the OT or Epistles, 1 from the Psalms and 1 from the Gospels

Sunday mass: 4 readings: 1 from the OT, 1 from the Epistles or Acts/Rev, Psalms then the Gospel

Easter Vigil has around 7 readings

Can you say that you do this much in your Sunday service?

I’m sure with Sunday school teachings and the Holy Spirit anointed pastor’s preaching is more in line with what Paul taught in 1Cor 14:26-40. Yes! We do very well.

Furthermore, the readings are so arranged to bring out the correlation between the OT and the NT to show that the New is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New

That seems very nice.

.

Aah but how do you know that the Bible is indeed God inspired? On what do you base that belief?/

The Bible tells me so 2 Tim 3:16, How do you know that the Pope infallible, someone told you so. If I told you that I used to be Santa Claus would you believe me?

But who determined that the Bible is indeed the Word of God? You will not have the Bible were it not for the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that wrote the Bible and determined which books are to be included in the canon

The Catholic church WROTE the Bible? That’s news to me! Did they write the O.T. too? How about all the letters that Paul wrote? If they WROTE the Bible why would they have to determine which books should included.

You have probably not extended your thinking this far but by agreeing that the Bible is infallible, you are actually agreeing that the Catholic Church is infallible

You mean it’s something like a cat chasing its tail in a circle? Benedictus2 this post seems kinda silly, don’t you think. God Bless ED O.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve heard this several times but I’ve never really understood what the difference between “born from above” and “born again” is; I know that the way Nicodemus understood born again is physical birth, but isn’t the Protestant idea of “born again” basically equivalent to “born from above?” Does the translation “born from above” help the Catholic position in any way?

Essentialy baptism is seen as a re-birth so we are so to speak “born again” since we have died with Christ and have risen with Him.

What I was trying to get at with my post is to emphasize that this idea of being “born again” as it is narrowly understood by Pentecostals and Evangelicals was not really very much in Christian thought prior to probably the early 1900s because everyone believed that baptism is how one gets this new life in Christ.

 

[panevino]

Hi Ed,
thought I’d try to respond to a couple things.
please disregard my post 702 (i got distracted)

…OF COURSE God wants us to be baptized, He even commands it but it’s to show our desire to start a new life in Christ repentance and our entrance to the Christian faith, and what is said above.

As you can see starting with Adam & Eve, BLOOD is the ONLY atonement for sins required by God as Heb 9:22, states, “without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins. -----Why then is Peter in Acts 2:38 saying be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins? Is there a contradiction? NO and there can‘t be! Peter combines, repent, belief in Jesus and baptism all lumped together into one statement. In v41 “Those who accepted his message (what message? The gospel of Jesus) were baptized. Their sins were forgiven by the belief in the gospel not the baptism In v37 the people were cut to heart by the message.-

Paul in Acts 22:16, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, CALLING ON HIS NAME. It’s the calling on His name that washes sins away. Sins aren’t physical that can be washed away, they have to be confessed an act of repentance.-----1 Pet. 3:21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the PLEDGE of a good conscience toward God.” It’s the pledge of good conscience (repentance turning to God) is what baptism does.–

TO SUMMARIZE: Nowhere in the entire Bible are sins forgiven by any other means accept through BLOOD. ED O.

My understanding is that the chirstian baptism superseedes the baptism of john.
you appear to see the effects of christian ‘water’ baptism as an exact replica of Johns (pre christ ‘water’ baptism) (ie: repentance only)

I read the following versus as suggestion that the christian baptism is MORE.

*john 3:5 *Except a man be born of water and spirit… *(though I know you dont agree with catholic interpretation of water here, or catholic interpretation of flesh and spirit in 3:6 which I discussed in post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5903959&postcount=626

to me your interpretation of 3:5-6 is so awkward. As such I am so the more settled with my interpretation, which as you know makes a big difference to this discussion.

*matt 28:19 *Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. *I see this as a clear differentiation from the baptism of john, and the words of the trinity including the son called during a catholic baptism as allowing the baptism to participate with the blood atonement made.

then there is the versus where John says that jesus will baptise with HS (i know, i know, you dont agree this refers to water/spirit baptism)

*Acts 19: 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied. 4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized intob the name of the Lord Jesus.
Paul appears to be clearly seperating johns baptism here.

*1 Peter 3:20 KJV Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

it actually says baptism NOW saves us by the resurrection
is this not a connection of the two events.

*mark 16:15-16 NIV Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I know you accept baptism is required, but you isolate from necessity.
I see mark 16:15-16 as saying that you need belief and baptism. I dont read the 2nd portion “…but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” as you appear to, to mean Belief ONLY saves… no, i see it as meaning that baptism alone (without belief) is no good.

also interested in your thoughts on my reply post to you regarding tounges in forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5914977&postcount=685

 

[SteveGC]

Why would anyone need the magisterium to tell them what the Bibles so clearly states about divorce. Since so many Catholics left the church and disregarded what you call sound doctrine on divorce, it appears that the magisterium changed their minds and now call it annullment. Same thing different name.

Ed, my friend…I think you might be exposing the extent of your confusion regarding Church teaching, here. You might want to look more closely at the concepts of divorce vs. annulment.

You hit the nail right on the head. Most or a good many Catholics don’t read the Bible, I hardly think that’s Jesus’ aproved method or 2Tim 3:16’s method of studying God’s Word.

Actually Ed, if you explore the history of the Church, starting in Acts and working your way forward to around 1450 A.D., it’s the only method really used. God’s written Word has pretty much always been read aloud and heard by the faithful, as opposed to individually read by those faithful.
.

The Bible tells me so 2 Tim 3:16, How do you know that the Pope infallible, someone told you so. If I told you that I used to be Santa Claus would you believe me?

Ed, what is the difference between believing a book which claims within it’s written text that a good portion of itself (not all of it) is inspired…vs. an institution which claims inspiration? Do you really accept the Bible’s inspiration solely from the fact that “it says so” within it’s pages? Fact is, whether we believe it or not, we are informed about the Bible’s inspiration from Church Tradition, not from a verse or two from within it.

The Catholic church WROTE the Bible? That’s news to me! Did they write the O.T. too?

No, the Church started at Pentecost.

How about all the letters that Paul wrote?

Paul was Catholic from the moment of his conversion.

If they WROTE the Bible why would they have to determine which books should included.

Because NT Scripture was not canonized for nearly 300 years after the writers of it passed away.

post 687 when you get a chance, Ed. No rush, I know you’re juggling multiple issues on here, and I’m at the back of the line. When you can. Thanks, brother.

 

[zach_dunn]

Why would anyone need the magisterium to tell them what the Bibles so clearly states about divorce.

The thing about divorce was just one of many example, the point benedictus was trying to make is that the teaching authority of the Church truly is authoritative and cannot be moved one way or another by the “majority vote” as Protestantism does. As to the question of why an infallible Magisterium is needed? Because without it we get the hundreds (probably thousands) of competing denominations which claim to interpret the Bible correctly; we end up with people like you, the Latter Day Saints, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses coming up with whatever doctrines suits their fancy without a sound way to interpret the Bible.

Luckily Jesus left us with a Church with an infallible teaching authority!

Since so many Catholics left the church and disregarded what you call sound doctrine

Typical, you fail to mention the many, many, MANY people who flock to Catholicism every year, you do know that Catholicism makes up approximately one-sixth of the entire world’s population, right?

on divorce, it appears that the magisterium changed their minds and now call it annullment. Same thing different name.

First, let me get you straight, are you saying that divorce is OK? You are kind of ambiguous in this respect. And second, an annulment is completely different from divorce: different thing different name.

You hit the nail right on the head. Most or a good many Catholics don’t read the Bible, I hardly think that’s Jesus’ aproved method or 2Tim 3:16’s method of studying God’s Word.

I’m pretty sure Jesus, never wrote anything Himself. Rather, He decided to preach [Mt 4:17, just one among many]; He also taught His disciples to preach and teach [Mt 10:27; 11:1; 28:19; Mk 3:14; 16:15; Lk 9:2; 9:60], please give me any biblical citation indicating that Jesus sent the Apostles to write the Bible, also, it is the spoken word that is said to be the “word of the Lord” [1 Pet 1:25].

I’m sure with Sunday school teachings and the Holy Spirit anointed pastor’s preaching is more in line with what Paul taught in 1Cor 14:26-40. Yes! We do very well.

Are you saying your pastor speaks in tongues and prophesies? Sunday school is no help if the child is learning a false gospel.

That seems very nice.

It seems as if you have no appreciation of typology.

The Bible tells me so 2 Tim 3:16, How do you know that the Pope infallible, someone told you so. If I told you that I used to be Santa Claus would you believe me?

You refute your own argument within this sentence, you imply at the end that just because someone or something says they are something, doesn’t make it so. Just because the Bible says it is inspired (I would contend that the passage you cited is referring to the OT anyway) does not make it so, there has to be an infallible authority to be able to determine if something really is what it says it is.

The Catholic church WROTE the Bible? That’s news to me! Did they write the O.T. too? How about all the letters that Paul wrote? If they WROTE the Bible why would they have to determine which books should included.

Benedictus was referring to the NT when he (sorry if you’re a girl) said “Bible.” And yes, Paul was Catholic, so was Peter, and all of the NT writers, just like every Christian prior to the Reformation was Catholic.

You mean it’s something like a cat chasing its tail in a circle? Benedictus2 this post seems kinda silly, don’t you think. God Bless ED O.

It’s not silly, you have to accept the infallibility of the Church to even think about believing the Bible is inspired. Let us assume that you believe the Bible is inspired for some reason that is not dependent on the Church (which you do), how do you know which books belong in the Bible? The fact is, you cannot determine the cannon of inspired Scriptures without the authority of the Catholic Church.