I Agree, One time i said that the Catholic Bible was the FIrst Bible written by the Catholic Church and boy did i get my fingers slapped. The word assembled is the word. But here is a good point too, if it was in turn the first bible lets say published how could we have added books. Oh just another truth in the Catholic Faith wouldnt you say.You at least admit that it was the Roman Catholic Church that assembled the canon.
So if the Catholic Church was THE only Church in the ancient world, and the scriptures themselves say that the Body of Christ IS the Church. It is only through THAT Body which has the Apostles, therefore Christ, as their foundation and who left behind proven men-that is men who were taught to interpret the scriptures the way that the Apostles had- to teach and oversee (Greek: episkopen-rendered to english also means bishop) the Body. Then THAT Body and only that Body must be the Church. And that Body because of the fact that they uphold and maintain those sound and solid interpretations that they received from the Apostles and God allows them the authority to teach under the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Can you interpret another “church” from scripture? Absolutely, but only at the risk of putting yourself under the judgement of those who received the Apostolic and Catholic teachings and who new better.
Ok Scott. Hold on let me finish. And its going to take while because I work at home and i have 3 people comming in a minute, Im doing this between People. Let me finsh all of this then you can take your best shot at me. Let be patient.This is a very interesting discussion, but I think what a lot of people don’t realize is that two people that interpret the Bible differently will never be persuaded by any one particular passage that goes against their convictions.
Sometimes you have to think outside the box.
Let me pose this question. What if you gave a person a set of medical books, and another person the federal code of law, and said to them, I am coming back in four years, I expect one of you to be a skilled surgeon and the other to be a distinguished constitutional lawyer. Would that be reasonable?
No, because you need actual teachers, and the authority (medical board, state bar) to determine who is qualified and who is not.
If this makes sense in these fields, don’t you think that it would be reasonable that the Lord wouldn’t leave his sheep without a Shepherd, and that that Shepherd would have the authority and protection needed to give them the true interpretation of His teaching?
Rinnie you know I love you sister. Yes the catholic church will always stand and prevail. But we’re splitting hairs again over what the Catholic church means. It is the universal church of Christ to which all believers IN Christ are members.inchrist101
Oh my little buddy what am i to do.
Okay bear with me.
this will be a few posts, have a pretty busy day will be in and out today. Gods taking care of me today you know what they day idle hands devils workshop.
Okay let me start here. 27 years ago my husband and i were looking for a house. Now you remember the ones the split entries. Around here they were package deals. you could buy them for like 40,000. He argued with me up and downs there is no way. Okay so we go to the place and he want to know how its made. well at first the guy had to get someone else, couldnt answer him. Then the one guy could answer some questions not many. So hes like yeah and this is who is going to build this house. Well i call him a smart ***. Now finally we get the guy who really knows whats going on. Now me, Im bored to death, I just want the house. What i see. DOnt care whats hidden. Now husbands asks about 2 x4 2x6 whatever, mind as well talk in tongues as far as im concerned. Im busy with the fun people looking at carpet. Ok now they get into a DISCUSSION, Now he says i want this instead of this. So when its all said and done this 40,000 house made the way he wants it, we are way over 100.000 and still going. So we leave, Im mad Im like why did you have to pick this house apart. He said no you dont understand it has to be made right. You have to have a solid house, solid foundation, This house has to last us forever. So thats that. No house. we buy a old one and he builds on. What it cost me for a garage 2 bedrooms 2 baths and family room NO LABOR mind you most people have a 4 bedroom house. now hes says you just wait. Well sure enough years later brick is falling off these houses, when they need a roof its not just shingles, its a roof wood and all. okay. get my point now.
Here we go
We have to start with history. Jesus said his church would be the light of the world. city on hill cant be hid (matt.5:14)must be visible and clearly identify it from other churches. Jesus promised gates of hell wont prevail matt 16:18. This mean it will always be here. The CC is the only Universal Christian Church that has existed since the time of Jesus. Eastern Orthodox broke away form the pope in 1054. protestant during the reformation began in 1517. and then Protestants broke off of each other and keep going. even today. Only the CC existed in the tenth century, fifth and in the first. Be back got alot to share.
I don’t need an education over divine grace and sanctifying grace. Read Acts or Paul’s letter to the Romans or any of Paul’s writings and notice how often he speaks of Grace. He never mentions receipt of Grace through communion.Okay, so here are the definitions of Grace. Note that there are two given here, Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace. Note also that there have been controversies surrounding Grace:
Actual Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm
Sanctifying Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
Controversies on Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm
Divine Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm
Note that the topic of Divine Grace is covered under the heading of Eucharist, as this is the means God uses to Communicate His Divine Grace to us. Even after 40 years, there is always room to grow and learn.
Prayerfully, by virture of His manifold Graces,
Gene
I surely am aware that the Apostles were not carrying around the Bible in their back pockets like we do today. Why would they, they were the ones who wrote most of it.Are you unaware that the Apostles had no bible as we know it?
What “scriptures” do you suppose that were being refered to in 2-tim-3:16
Evidently, you do need such an education. As you seem to have rejected the teaching authority of the Church. You propose to know it all. Yet, because you can not find a quote in scripture, you reject the very source and summit of Grace, the Christ Jesus Himself in the Eucharist!I don’t need an education over divine grace and sanctifying grace. Read Acts or Paul’s letter to the Romans or any of Paul’s writings and notice how often he speaks of Grace. He never mentions receipt of Grace through communion.
let me finish this and when i do i swear you will understand what i am saying i promise. It wont be splitting hairs anymore. As least i hope not. ITs long but bear with me. IT will be worth it.Rinnie you know I love you sister. Yes the catholic church will always stand and prevail. But we’re splitting hairs again over what the Catholic church means. It is the universal church of Christ to which all believers IN Christ are members.
We actually agree on the bolded bits above!Rinnie you know I love you sister. Yes the catholic church will always stand and prevail. But we’re splitting hairs again over what the Catholic church means. It is the universal church of Christ to which all believers IN Christ are members.
Wow you almost lost me there Brother. My point was the church had criteria that was used to select the Canon. But selecting the Canon doesn’t mean you are the absolute teaching authority of the contents. If one person assembled the Bible, would that make him/her the absolute teaching authority of it. I would say no and here’s why. Look how the Gospels were chosen as Canon. Initially it was decided that there would only be 4 Gospels in the Bible just like the 4 points of a compass, North, South, East, and West. What the logic there is is beyond me. But do the research and you’ll see what I men. To ultimately select the 4 they noticed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the most widely accepted Gospels and the most understood by the people reading them at that time. This is why we don’t have for instance the Gospel of Phillip included as Canon. Or any other of Gospel for that matter. Have you ever really studied why and how the Bible was assembled. Josh McDowells book is excellent.So, was there a “church” which wasn’t the Church (Catholic) which simply “took the Church’s [Catholic] word for it” that the selected books in the bible were correct?
Who were these folks?
Give a bible in the Fnooboo language to a Fnooboo native, where the Fnooboo people are a very isolated group of Ngano-glitlan people on the island of Wau in the far southeastern Pacific who have never had any contact with “Westerners” (Christian or elsewise) [or “Easterners” for that matter].
Such a great question. If they read the Bible and had no one to explain it to them what would happen?? Would they find Jesus or not? This is like saying nobody can ever read the works of William Shakespeare without a teaching authority and that if a Fnooboo native read Shapkespeare is his native language he/she couldn’t possibly understand.They can read the bible, as they can read their own language, but what does it MEAN to them?
This is your opinion and not a statement of fact. Perhaps you may need more help than someone else does.The reason that we have the illusion that the bible is “easily understandable” is that our culture is BASED on it, and even then, one needs specialized experts, even if they are “part-time”, to more fully understand what is going on in the bible and what it means.
No that’s your definition of a Protestant church. Perhaps you should research what a Protestant church really is.That is precisely the definition of a protestant church.
Ooohhhh GOOD question. Look in the mirror my Brother because it appears that Roman Catholics do just that in these forums. If you claim that adhering to all Roman Catholic doctrines makes you a Christian, then how can you tell me I’m not a Christian??If ANY set of doctrines that are self-proclaimed as “Christian” makes one a Christian, then on what grounds can anyone claim another person is not a Christian?
I think you stretched this just a little too far. You obviously have some bad feelings about something. What I don’t know. But it’s almost like you can’t stand the fact that there is life with Jesus outside the roman Catholic church and you want so badly to tell people that they absolutely can’t have a relationship with Jesus or even begin to undertand the Bible unless they are a member of the Roman Catholic church.Truly, there aren’t in fact 30,000 “Christian denominations”, but rather several hundreds of millions of “Christian denominations” because each individual is fully authorized to be his own “Pope” and “decision maker a to doctrine” of his “church”.
=CalmDownWisWins;3278984]Once again your idea of “a church” is causing you difficulties. The Catholic Mass is several in actual practice, but must contain certain specific elements. If those elements aren’t there, then it’s not a Mass.
By definition the mass is the sacrifice of Christ. The elements of bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus and then being offered as a sacrifice. Which of course makes no sense because the sacrifice is over. I have no difficulties with the idea of “the church”. But perhaps you should research how the concept of the mass and idea behind the sacrifice actually stems from Mithraism. Then take a look at how all the clothing the Priests and the Pope himself wears and compare that to what the Mithraists wore in their worship. Then show me in the Bible where the early Christians had a mass. I believe we will find that they (Christians) dedicated themselves to the prayers of the Apostles, their teachings about Jesus, and the breaking of Bread). No sacrifice is even mentioned.If a priest doesn’t perform the Mass, then it’s not a Mass, which all people of the Body of Christ are commanded to attend if at all possible. If they don’t then they distance themselves from being in communion with the Church.
According to who??? This isn’t what Jesus taught us.
Our church partakes in the Lord’s supper every week. We also read from the Gospels each week. Our message is completely centered on Christ and our responsorial actions are with prayers and songs of worship. How is that anti-chistian??BUT, the Mass is not the only way to “worship God”, either for Catholics or anyone else.
A “church” which doesn’t perform the Mass is not a “false church” meaning an “anti-Christian” church, but those who know better that not going to Mass is Anti-Christian who refuse to do so are members of their own, personal, “Me as Pope of my church” anti-Christian “church”.
Already answered.Why is that not obvious?
The last paragraph first: There is no teaching of the Church which has no “scriptural support”!I surely am aware that the Apostles were not carrying around the Bible in their back pockets like we do today. Why would they, they were the ones who wrote most of it.
The scriptures Paul was referring to was obviously the Old testament. They did have scrolls in the Temple and in fact we see Jesus picking them up and referencing them. The point is that just as Paul instructed Timothy to trust scripture the same applies to us today. Only we have the benefit of actually having the Bible. When the early churches struggled whether it was persecution, false teachers, bad practices etc. the Apostles wrote to them. Don’t we consider what they wrote as scripture?? If so then how does Paul’s statement to Timothy not apply to us today??
Here’s what I would like you to do. Show me one teaching of the church that has absolutely no scriptural support whatsover. Name one please.
It is hard to understand your partial assent here. I added the Catholic above. It was the Catholic Church that decided which writings were Inspired by God. The very process of doing this implies a sense of Authority which only Christ can give. And then in the same breath you exhale and mutter that this does not mean what it very clearly means. That the Catholic Church has the Teaching Authority of Christ!Wow you almost lost me there Brother. My point was the [Catholic] Church had criteria that was used to select the Canon. But selecting the Canon doesn’t mean you are the absolute teaching authority of the contents… I think we just disagree on who the ultimate teaching authority is.
So, you’re saying that you accept a “non-inspired HUMAN rationalization” selection process for your INSPIRED holy books?Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
So, was there a “church” which wasn’t the Church (Catholic) which simply “took the Church’s [Catholic] word for it” that the selected books in the bible were correct?
Who were these folks?
Wow you almost lost me there Brother. My point was the church had criteria that was used to select the Canon. But selecting the Canon doesn’t mean you are the absolute teaching authority of the contents.
If one person assembled the Bible, would that make him/her the absolute teaching authority of it.
I would say no and here’s why.
Look how the Gospels were chosen as Canon. Initially it was decided that there would only be 4 Gospels in the Bible just like the 4 points of a compass, North, South, East, and West. What the logic there is is beyond me.
But do the research and you’ll see what I men. To ultimately select the 4 they noticed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the most widely accepted Gospels and the most understood by the people reading them at that time.
You’ll have to explain how a protestant “historian” of the selection process that the Catholic Church used is more trustworthy than the Church’s knowledge of how they selected the inspired books of the bible.This is why we don’t have for instance the Gospel of Phillip included as Canon. Or any other of Gospel for that matter. Have you ever really studied why and how the Bible was assembled. Josh McDowells book is excellent.