God wrote the Bible not the Catholic Church

[Robert902]

What on earth is that cite (Eph 4:12) at the end of your private interpretation supposed to mean? That you did some research? I don’t think so. It doesn’t refer to your private doctrine at all. Here is Eph 4:11-12 which actually demonstrates the opposite of your private doctrine:

Where did Christ leave the pastors? In his church.

Did He wait 1400 years to do that in order to establish 33000 denominations, thus abandonning us and leaving us orphans or in the Greek leaving us comfortless for a millenium and a half? Um… no.

Do the 33000 denominations represent unity? Um… no.

The Church to which he refers is the Catholic Church. And then He continues to clarify:

Tossed to and fro means that the every wind of doctrine to which He refers are multiple doctrines-- not one – and ephemeral or constantly **changing **doctrines – not unchanging. That refers to the 33 000 denominations whose doctrines change among each other and even within themselves; denominations which have rebelled against the Church which Jesus Himself established for us.

It is the One Magisterium of the Catholic Church which does not change.

And here He warns against private doctrines:

Your private doctrine is so grasping at straws and your gratuitous cite is so transparently off the mark that I am surprised you were willing to expose yourself so readily.

Your post demonstrates a profound lack of insight as to what purpose the rites of the Catholic Church which Jesus established serve. Your private opinion is nowhere in the vicinity of what you are attempting to target. Nowhere near.

Don’t you think it’s time you hit the books? I mean if you are going to comment on Catholic ‘rites,’ it is only reasonable to know what they are first. Don’t you think?

Well, let’s see: do you know what the Catholic rites are? Please do not ignore this question as you have ignored others. This is afterall a discussion board – not a lecture board.

Here is a link to a hefty list on Sacraments and the Mass to start you off. Please read it before commenting further. There is much more to be said on these subjects, but let’s not overload you since you give us the impression that you are not terribly practised in study at this point in time.

If you stick around CA long enough, you will be though. Have a good day.

:tiphat:

Eph. 4:12 was incorrect, and I do apologize for the mistake.

 

[Robert902]

Please answer the questions. Do you believe that logos is Jesus? Or do you believe that logos is Scripture? Which is it please? The questions require yes or no answers. Thank you.

It might not be clear to you, so I’ll say it a different way. Logos in Christian theology is the divine word, or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ. John 1:1-4. So, what do you think the Bible says, is Jesus the Word?

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph. 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good”.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Robert902]

Do you have a definition for private interpretation? You might find that at vatican.va. Actually you might find a lot of information for which you are looking there, specifically in the Catechism. Then you would no longer be grasping at straws. You would know what it is exactly you are trying to dismantle – thus far unsuccessfully – in your posts.

Well let’s see what 1Cor2:14 says, shall we?

So once again: to which church is Paul referring?

The 33000 denominations with doctrines which change among each other and even within themselves? Truth cannot contradict truth. If doctrines change, then divergent doctrines set forth as ‘truth’ in two or more denominations cannot all be true.

To claim that they can be all true simply defies reason. And Faith cannot be unreasonable.

At the very least 32999 denominations must be in error. The problem is in determining which one. This problem does not exist in the Catholic Church. Because the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is protected against error by the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, why would Jesus have waited for 1400 years – and thus going against His promise to leave us abandonned and as orphans in the interim – to establish 33000 denominations?

It is obvious that the Church to which Paul refers is the Catholic Church and the truth to which Paul refers is contained in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

So why do you rely on your natural mind which is capable only of private interpretation? Why do you not rely on the Catholic Church – the Church which Jesus established – to which Jesus gave authority to interpret and which is guided by the Holy Spirit in Her interpretation?

You are putting words in my mouth. :tsktsk:

I am born again. All Catholics are born again. Humans understand things because God gives us the gifts of observation and of reason and of faith. But we can still make errors because our observation, reason, and faith are fallen.

The Magisterium of the Catholic is not fallen. It is incapable of teaching error. Why? Because the Holy Spirit protects it from error.

The Magisterium of the Catholic church is incapable of teaching error. So if I could show you that The Magesterium has made numerous errors, I would have to assume from what you have told me, that the Holy Spirit had failed. The Holy Spirit never has and never will fail, so if there are teaching errors, it is The Magesterium that has failed.

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph. 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Magisterium of the Catholic church is incapable of teaching error. So if I could show you that The Magesterium has made numerous errors, I would have to assume from what you have told me, that the Holy Spirit had failed. The Holy Spirit never has and never will fail, so if there are teaching errors, it is The Magesterium that has failed.

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph. 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No. It has not failed. The Magisterium teaching office on moral and faith is part of the deposit of faith. Unchanging. I have seen Protestant Churches change their minds on certain issues. For example, homosexuality in Anglican Church. They taught that homosexual is wrong. Then they say it is ok. They ordain homosexual priests, admitted gay marriages, ordain women priest? I don’t see how a woman priest can act in the Person of Christ… who is Male, and High Priest…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

It might not be clear to you, so I’ll say it a different way. Logos in Christian theology is the divine word, or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ. John 1:1-4. So, what do you think the Bible says, is Jesus the Word?

Do you believe that logos is Scripture? (A yes or no answer would be helpful.) Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The Holy Spirit never has and never will fail, so if there are teaching errors, it is The Magesterium that has failed."

I’m glad you brought this up. The Magisterium does not contain error. Individuals in the Church, however, may be in error.

It is illogical to generalize that the Church Herself may be at fault when only one or more individuals are at fault.

Here is some explanatory material on infallibility.

…the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching…

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation…

God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document…

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed…

A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:

• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately [when speaking *ex cathedra].

Through the first of these [the bishops] is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority.

 

[guanophore]

Your guys went into schism, and then started their own new religions. Just as Jesus schismated against the Jews, and started the Catholic Church.

Catholics are not Jews, because Jesus made a split with the Jews. (They crucified Him for this.)

O am not so sure this is true. I think it was possible that, had the Jews accepted Jesus, salvation history would look very different. Salvation is from the Jews, and came to the Jews. Jesus yearned to save the Jewish people, and grieved over their rejection of Him. I do not think Jesus split with them, I think they refused to receive the saviour that was promised to them. I think they crucified him for that reason, and that He claimed to be God.

Had they accepted Him, we might all be messianic Jews!

I am also not sure it is helpful to say “your guys went into schism”. Most protestants have no idea that they are products of the reformers.

The Protestants are not Catholic, because their original leaders made a split with the Catholic Church and started up their own religions. A great deal of violence also ensued from that - on both sides.

Point being, when you left, you didn’t stay. You created a new religion, and that religion dates back to the day that you started it. You can’t have it both ways - you can’t rebel against the old religion, start up a new religion, and then say that you are still faithful to the old religion. You can’t break off all connection, and then say that you are in some way connected. It just doesn’t work that way.

I don’t think it is helpful to put the sins of the original Protestants on to the offspring. As the catechism teaches, most of them are not at fault for being mislead. They are as sincere in their faith as they have been taught to be from childhood, however errantly. I do agree with you that, once educated, each person has a responsibility to respond to the truth, and that disconnection from the truth has occured as a result of the reformation.

 

[Sixtus]

Catholic or Protestant, we all share a common Church history. When one refuses to accept revisionist accounts of our past, when one recognizes crack historians with an agenda for what they are, and when the true history of our faith can be learned and discussed and seen for what it is, warts and all – then, my brothers and sisters in Christ, we can begin a most wonderful conversation.

AMEN

Tragically the Catholic term for Protestants ‘Seperated Brethren’, the noun is ‘Brethren’ not ‘seperated’. Often the reverse is taken to be the case.

Protestants regardless of their persuasion, if they follow Christ then they are our ‘Brethren’ and co-heirs with Christ

 

[Robert902]

Do you believe that logos is Scripture? (A yes or no answer would be helpful.)… Thank you.

Logos is a title for Christ, but from the OT perspective the concept of Logos evoked God’s word. That’s about as plain as I can make this.
Your asking me for a yes or no answer, would be like me asking you, if you are an Atheist or a Christian? And asking you to only answer it with either a yes or a no. The Bible commands us to “reason together.”

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Robert902:

Logos is a title for Christ, but from the OT perspective the concept of Logos evoked God’s word.

Logos is a title for Christ but…

The word ‘but’ serves to negate the clause which precedes it. So, by using ‘but’ you are saying that you believe logos is not a title for Christ. Any evidence for this view?

Robert902:

That’s about as plain as I can make this.

An equivocal answer is plain in what way?

Robert902:

Your asking me for a yes or no answer, would be like me asking you, if you are an Atheist or a Christian?

Faulty analogy.

Robert902:

And asking you to only answer it with either a yes or a no. The Bible commands us to “reason together.”

How is evading my question ‘reasoning together’? Also, if you are going to make claims, then please either give your line of reasoning or give links or (preferably) both. That way we can understand the context of your reference. Thank you.

 

[Frank_Fenn]

Everybody knows that God gave us the bible. It was given by God as a whole book from Genesis to Revelation. Everyting we need for life is in the bible. Protestants are right.we do not need a church of any kind.All we need is the Bible.

The Lord’s public ministry was not necessary, He could have done it in private. We have His word in the bible handed down to us from God. God gave us the bible. The Catholic Church put books into it that God did not pen. Protestants took them out again!

We do not need the Catholic Church as we are free to interpret it as we want. That is why athiests interpret it different to SDA which is different to JW’s which is different to Moslems, which is different to mainstream Protestants which is different to Catholic and Orthodox.

It can be interpreted however you want. My agnostic friends interpret it and they dont even believe in it.

So we did not need a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church the pope and His Apostles were actually not necessary.

Catholics are idolatrous because they worship the Father Son and Holy Spirit, Mary and the saints. You should worship only one God and the Bible.

Ok… slow down a little bit… first off your profile states your Catholic correct? Iam surprised that you, as a Catholic would believe these things. or are you changing your religion? That is your choice.

Secondly, it was necessary for Christ to have a public ministry. Most protestants we know agree on that. What belief told you that Jesus did not need a public ministry?

Tell me, why were the apostles not necessary in your opinion? How can Catholics be considered “idalotrous” for worshipping God? are you saying that there is no Holy Trinity? the Bible itself states there is as you well know. There is nothing idolatrous about worshipping the One True God. you know better than to say we worship Mary. We don’t.

Sounds to me like your looking for a way out of the faith correct?
Well, that is your decision. I hope you reconsider. If you don’t, God bless you on your journey to finding whatever it is that your looking for. I hope you find it.

Where do you think the worlds Christian religions got their Bible from? And also note, the Bible itself says that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. that means all.

Do you think it was also not necessary for Christ to give His life as a ransom for many? it was necessary. I will keep you in our prayers. I hope you lean on Christ and put your trust in Him.

The One True Church is the Catholic Church. Always has been, and always will be.

 

[Robert902]

Logos is a title for Christ but…

The word ‘but’ serves to negate the clause which precedes it. So, by using ‘but’ you are saying that you believe logos is not a title for Christ. Any evidence for this view?

An equivocal answer is plain in what way?

Faulty analogy.

How is evading my question ‘reasoning together’? Also, if you are going to make claims, then please either give your line of reasoning or give links or (preferably) both. That way we can understand the context of your reference. Thank you.

I’ll try this one more time. There are many names for Christ, and Logos is one of them, as is the Word. An actual physical word cannot be a person. My name is Robert, but I am much more than 6 letters on a piece of paper. Don’t try and put Jesus in a box.
And the word but doesn’t negate anything!

God Bless,
Robert

 

[guanophore]

Without following the Pope, you will never find Jesus. Even the New Testament was given to us by a Catholic Pope - Pope Damasus, in 381 AD. Every time you pick up your New Testament Bible and read it, you are following Pope Damasus.

I think this might be a bit exclusive. jesus has the power to reveal Himself to any and all, and does so in spite of the fact that people resist His appointed authority on earth. Instead, let us pray that those who do begin to find Jesus will complete their discovery, and come into all truth.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Robert902:

I’ll try this one more time.

Just trying answering the question the first time, rather than avoiding it and making up your own question.

Does logos mean Jesus or Scripture?

Robert902:

There are many names for Christ, and Logos is one of them, as is the Word.

I did not ask how many names there are for Christ. I also note that you do not offer any evidence for what you say. You say something but you do not say why you say it.

Robert902:

An actual physical word cannot be a person.

It can be the Second Person of God.

Robert902:

Don’t try and put Jesus in a box.

What effect do you think not recognizing Jesus as the logos has?

 

[Robert902]

Just trying answering the question the first time, rather than avoiding it and making up your own question.

Does logos mean Jesus or Scripture?

I did not ask how many names there are for Christ. I also note that you do not offer any evidence for what you say. You say something but you do not say why you say it.

It can be the Second Person of God.

What effect do you think not recognizing Jesus as the logos has?

I’m not sure what you are looking for honestly. You are obviously trying to prove a point. Possibly you think that I deny that Jesus is God.

John 1:1-3 Word is God.
John 1:14 Word became flesh.
John 1:18 Word revealed God.

Christ was understood to have been the immanent reason (logos endiathetos) of the father who came forth (logos prophorikos, the uttered word) before creation, being generated then, although already existent in the Father, and became man in the incarnation.

Im not trying to dodge a yes or no answer, but there is more to it than acquiescing to your request for a yes or no answer.

God Bless,
Robert.

I

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I’ll try this one more time. There are many names for Christ, and Logos is one of them, as is the Word. An actual physical word cannot be a person. My name is Robert, but I am much more than 6 letters on a piece of paper. Don’t try and put Jesus in a box.
And the word but doesn’t negate anything!

God Bless,
Robert

Ah! This says alot - though I am in disagreement with it (other than there are many titles for Christ).

 

[guanophore]

I am answering the question of Sixtus He wrote:Originally Posted by Sixtus

“Then my friend do not go, please stay and tell us some…just one will do! Please tell us any catholic teaching which is not grounded on the Scriptures. But it must be an authentic catholic teaching, not something someone has invented. There are a lot of alleged catholic teachings which have no reality beyond the mind of the person who expressed it.” Sixtus

Sixtus asked the question and I am answering it period.

I would like Sixtus to repond. It was he who asked the question. “Please tell us any Catholic teaching which is not grounded on scripture.”

Well where are the scriptures Sixtus?

I guess you figure that the other children were a result of immaculate conception too! Wow.

Why don’t you just open your mind to the possibility that she was a good wife and mother to her husband and children and that somone just made up this ever- virgin doctrine. Please Sixtus which scripture is the Catholic teaching of (ever-virgin Mary) founded on? Sixtus?

arcadia

Please Arcadia and Sixtus, don’t derail the thread. You are off topic. This has already been taken up on several threads. Right now there is one called “what can be said about the Virgin.” You can also search Jesus brothers or if you want, start another thread.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ll try this one more time. There are many names for Christ, and Logos is one of them, as is the Word. An actual physical word cannot be a person.

In the case of Christ, it was not merely the name “Jesus” that was spoken forth by the Father, but it was Jesus Himself who is being spoken forth out of the mouth of the Father. His loving response to the Father coupled with the Father’s love for Him caused the Holy Spirit (which is the love they share between them) to come into existence. All of this happened in Eternity, not time, and it didn’t happen in a linear sequence, so there was no “time” when either the Son or the Spirit came into existence, but Jesus is what is eternally spoken forth by the Father, and the Spirit is the eternal love that they share between them - three Persons in one God. Jesus is equal with the Father because the Father’s Word is as perfect as He is. The love between Father and Son is also perfect; thus, the Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son.

The Bible was not spoken forth by the Father in the same way that Jesus was. Rather, the Bible was inspired by God, and written down by human beings, not as though God were giving dictation, but by God moving their hearts to record the true things about their covenant relationship with Him.

 

[Robert902]

Isn’t there also a commandment, “Follow your appointed Church leaders”?

There is nothing in the Bible that says, “Quit following Peter and set yourself up in his place, if you disagree with him.”

Without following the Pope, you will never find Jesus. Even the New Testament was given to us by a Catholic Pope - Pope Damasus, in 381 AD. Every time you pick up your New Testament Bible and read it, you are following Pope Damasus.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but every time I pick up my New Testament, I am going to try and follow Jesus, not the Pope. And I think this clearly illustrates the intent of Psalm 118:8 “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” And if we follow the Pope, we are putting our confidence in a man aren’t we?

God Bless,
Robert

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but every time I pick up my New Testament, I am going to try and follow Jesus, not the Pope. And I think this clearly illustrates the intent of Psalm 118:8 “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” And if we follow the Pope, we are putting our confidence in a man aren’t we?

No more than if you obey your boss at work, or obey your parents at home. God has placed certain people in authority over certain things, and when we obey those people, it is through our obedience to those people that we are really obeying God.

The Pope is one of those people. We see in John 21:15-19 that Peter was ordained by Christ to be chief shepherd of the Church. That wasn’t just a temporary thing - Peter appointed a successor - Linus - and that same line of succession remains unbroken to this very day, just exactly as Christ promised to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19. (Cross reference “the keys” to Isaiah 22:22 for a clear picture of what Christ was promising to Peter.)

My point earlier was that it was Pope Damasus who gave us the New Testament in the first place. Without his infallible declaration to the Church that those specific 27 books are the contents of the New Testament Bible, we wouldn’t have it. God worked through the Pope to give us the Bible, just as He works through our parents to keep us safe during childhood, and through our boss at work to provide for us in adulthood.

God continues to work through the Pope even today, to let us know what things we are to do and to believe, as good Christian people.