holy father?

[estesbob]

Well the word of God says to those who are lost the message of the cross is foolishness to us who are being saved it is the power of God, so to the foolish they may believe that they need a man to paint it out for them, However to the true Christian, follower of Christ it doesn’t requier a brain surgion or group of theologians to point out the truth. although, theologians do exist outside the Catholic faith and they too have searched the scriptures and found the drivel and pomt of the traditional Church, corrupt as it is, and to be wanting in the truth.

fortunatley we have the priveledge and freedom to be able to question the lies of tradition with out fear of being put to death or sent into excile, and better still we have the word of God in easy to read lanquages for the commen man, thanks to men who stood against the wishes of the C.Church to reveal the word of God to every person who is willing to read and search for themselves.
Proverbs 25:2 it is the Glory of God to conceal a matter it, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter. **God doesn’t hide things from us but for us. **

Based in who’s interpertion? You say God doesnt hide things form us but it appears he has hidden a lot of the truth from you. If you disagree with that then how can both of us be right?

I will have to admit that nearly every scripture verse you post has nothng to do with what we are talking about. I suspect you a buying into the old stereotype that Catholics dont know ther Bible and expect us to take your word that what you post has relevance. I also note that you tend to ignore posts that question your personal interpertations of Scripture. Two cases to point my two post response this morning to you on the real presence and my recent post pointing out the absurdirty of your intrerperation that Peter was rejectiong tradtion when the next verse shows he was endorsing it(it does seem to be a common affliction of the Protestant who post here to stop a verse short)/

I will note that i am not arrogant enough te presume i can interpert Scripture infallibly-but my comments are in line with the teachings of the Church and the Wriitngs of the Church fathers. You see revmarty as i said before I dont have to read Scripture to determine the Truth/. Christ set up his Church to be a receptacle of the truth and it has performed admirably the last 2,000 years.I study Scripture to undertand the truth more fully. While you run around trying to discover the hidden meaning of Scripture and try to build up your personal realtionship with Christ I daily hold him in my hands and obey his command to eat his body and drink his blood. Now thats personal!

 

[estesbob]

No, I have no tolerance for a False teaching, and no apologise for that. and unfortunatly revmarty was all I could settle on as you guy’s got all the good names already.

Thanks MG

False teachings based on who’s interpertation of Scripture?

BTW-you are welcome to use estesmarty as a username if you want.

 

[revmarty]

I guess thats you personal interpertation as it doesnt say a word about tradition. It is intersting what they go on to say :

20 “we cannot help speaking about what we **have seen and heard.” **

---

---

They didn’t mention scripture at all; did they?? They were talkking about ORAL tradition!

the problem is you will have to consult the pope to clarify this for you, I assume you have him on speed dial, however a less educated person could comprehend the meaning in Act 4: the religion said it’s is wrong and the ordinary men Peter and John said we would rather believe God then you, thank you very much. yes it was oral but I don’t see your point here?

Marty

 

[revmarty]

False teachings based on who’s interpertation of Scripture?

BTW-you are welcome to use estesmarty as a username if you want.

thank you

EB

 

[estesbob]

the problem is you will have to consult the pope to clarify this for you, I assume you have him on speed dial, however a less educated person could comprehend the meaning in Act 4: the religion said it’s is wrong and the ordinary men Peter and John said we would rather believe God then you, thank you very much. yes it was oral but I don’t see your point here?

Marty

Ah-the standard anti-catohilc dig at the pope. It may suprise you but the Pope is just as bound by the teachngs and doctines of the Catholic Charuch as the other 1.4 billion of us.

Religion didnt say it was wrong-one man did -a man who acted very much like you do in these forums.

Then we fgo to the newxt verse(the one you left out.) It must be verydisapointing for a sola-scriptura adherent to see peter stressin Oral Tradition. but then , of course, i am sure that runs afould of your personal interpertation of it. preety neat trick Scripture says whatever revmaty says it does…

Gotta run-its time to put on my papist beanie so the pope can beam instuctions into my mind.

 

[revmarty]

Based in who’s interpertion? You say God doesnt hide things form us but it appears he has hidden a lot of the truth from you. If you disagree with that then how can both of us be right?

I will have to admit that nearly every scripture verse you post has nothng to do with what we are talking about. I suspect you a buying into the old stereotype that Catholics dont know ther Bible and expect us to take your word that what you post has relevance. I also note that you tend to ignore posts that question your personal interpertations of Scripture. Two cases to point my two post response this morning to you on the real presence and my recent post pointing out the absurdirty of your intrerperation that Peter was rejectiong tradtion when the next verse shows he was endorsing it(it does seem to be a common affliction of the Protestant who post here to stop a verse short)/

I will note that i am not arrogant enough te presume i can interpert Scripture infallibly-but my comments are in line with the teachings of the Church and the Wriitngs of the Church fathers. You see revmarty as i said before I dont have to read Scripture to determine the Truth/. Christ set up his Church to be a receptacle of the truth and it has performed admirably the last 2,000 years.I study Scripture to undertand the truth more fully. While you run around trying to discover the hidden meaning of Scripture and try to build up your [personal realtionship with Christ I daily hold him in my hands and obey his command to eat his body and drink his blood. Now thats personal!

That’s sad, not personal, every post I have posted is in response to the question or topic, Just because you refuse to see the relevance in the scripture or for that matter the authority of the scripture, for that i can not be held on account, your Church reteric prevents you from hearing or seeing the truth. when I read literature either old or new about God and his word I compare what is said to his word and not the teaching of a falible Church organization.

Jesus died for our sins once that was enough because he is enough, to think I need to eat him and drink his blood, well I hope your not married if that is your definition of a personal relationship.

rm
[/quote]

 

[revmarty]

Ah-the standard anti-catohilc dig at the pope. It may suprise you but the Pope is just as bound by the teachngs and doctines of the Catholic Charuch as the other 1.4 billion of us.

Religion didnt say it was wrong-one man did -a man who acted very much like you do in these forums.

Then we fgo to the newxt verse(the one you left out.) It must be verydisapointing for a sola-scriptura adherent to see peter stressin Oral Tradition. but then , of course, i am sure that runs afould of your personal interpertation of it. preety neat trick Scripture says whatever revmaty says it does…

Gotta run-its time to put on my papist beanie so the pope can beam instuctions into my mind.

I’m a Sola-Scriptura fanatic, that put’s me in good company.

Have a great time

Be blessed

Marty

 

[estesbob]

Jesus died for our sins once that was enough because he is enough, to think I need to eat him and drink his blood, well I hope your not married if that is your definition of a personal relationship.

rm

Now you mock the Lord. -you are just like the disciples who deserted him in John 6-they couldnt handle the truh -neither can you.

 

[lak611]

Jesus died for our sins once that was enough because he is enough, to think I need to eat him and drink his blood, well I hope your not married if that is your definition of a personal relationship.

rm

Do you think our Lord was lying when He said this:

(NASB) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

 

[mercygate]

Please be patient with me, if supposing the Pope, the Christian father and tradition decree a thing to be then that is it no more negotiation, is that correct.

If you are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, that was the consensus of the Fathers as hammered out at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. The authority of councils is presupposed by the promise that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into “all the truth.”

you see that text in Isaiah, you claim, christians use all the time does not fully demonstrate three distinct persons, what hope does the Christian church have if not the vain fact that the “Church” decree’s it and now I believe it? how absurd.

If you did not already believe in the Trinity, those two passages would not create the doctrine for you. Those passages in no way clinch the divinity of the “spirit of God.” Remember: no capital letters in the original. If those quotes were clinchers, the Jews would believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit as a separate Person of the Godhead.

I reject the idea that it is “vain fact,” that the definition of the Trinity held by all Christians includes a theological construction not found in Scripture itself, namely the word “homoousion.” It is by no means ‘absurd’ (your word) to say that the Church can rely on the promise of Christ himself to “be with you always.”

who say’s scripture does not atest to itself, please explain?

I mean that even if the Scriptures themselves were to say: “What is written here is the inspired and inerrant Word of God,” that in itself would not guarantee that they were, in fact, the ‘inspired and inerrant word of God.’ There must be corroborative witness. Catholics believe that witness lies in

1. the integrity of the manuscript evidence – taken in itself without reference to any validation by the Church
2. the consonance of the known belief of the early Church as witnessed from early non-scriptural writings and the content of the New Testament (i.e., the Resurrection)
3. the identification of what the NT says the Church will be and what the early Church was as known from the Early Church Fathers
4. the collation and ratification of the 27 books of the NT by councils of the Church in the 4th Century
5. the historical continuity of *that *Church with the Catholic Church as she is today.

In other words, “If the Bible says it, it must be true” is an admirable faith statement but a flimsy ground for that faith.

I believe the word God because in John 10:35 Jesus tells us that the scripture (the Bible) is as good as Gods word, and Jesus does not look to religion or mans traditions to back up what he said and did.

But you DO look to ‘religion’ and to tradition to back up what Jesus said and did because without the Church you would not know what the Bible IS. The respected Protestant teacher, Dr. R. C. Sproul, has an excellent essay on the canonicity of Scripture that you might try to find. While affirming the authority of the early Church to determine the canon of Scripture, he ultimately comes down to a perplexing conundrum: “For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books while for Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”

and in ACTS 4:19 The apostles gave us a great example of breaking away from tradition or our religion when it contradicts Jesus own words.

Marty

There is nothing in Acts 4:19 about contradicting Jesus’ words. Again, you seem to be reading a layer into the text which the text does not support. These eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, who knew that Jesus was God and the Son of God had the advantage over their hearers. They were preaching the Gospel message ***of the Church. ***Preaching the resurrection is the “tradition” – namely the handing down – of the Gospel. That is what tradition means, and Paul in I Cor 11 and 2 Thess 2 enjoins the churches to hold fast to the traditions he has taught them. They had walked, touched, eaten with a man whom only one of them had seen dead but all of them had seen resurrected. Remember the only traditions Jesus condemns are those that ‘make void the word of God.’ For Christians, as Paul tell us, the Tradition is the word of God living in the Church.

 

[revmarty]

Now you mock the Lord. -you are just like the disciples who deserted him in John 6-they couldnt handle the truh -neither can you.

I don’t mock the Lord I merely scoff at your i’ll informed ritual, and considering the elevated position your Chuch awards the disciples ie Peter being the first pope I take it as a great compliment that you liken me to the disciples, your kindness overwhelms me, Peter seemed to get it eventully don’t you think?

Marty,

 

[mercygate]

I’m a Sola-Scriptura fanatic, that put’s me in good company.

Have a great time

Be blessed

Marty

Where in the Bible does the Bible teach “sola Scriptura?”

If this is a core doctrine of your faith, shouldn’t it be found in Scripture? (Hint: it isn’t.)

Fact is, sola Scriptura was a necessity of the Reformation. The Bible and the Church are inseparable. Scripture derives its power from the heart of the Church, which is the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[revmarty]

If you are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, that was the consensus of the Fathers as hammered out at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. The authority of councils is presupposed by the promise that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into “all the truth.”

If you did not already believe in the Trinity, those two passages would not create the doctrine for you. Those passages in no way clinch the divinity of the “spirit of God.” Remember: no capital letters in the original. If those quotes were clinchers, the Jews would believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit as a separate Person of the Godhead.

I reject the idea that it is “vain fact,” that the definition of the Trinity held by all Christians includes a theological construction not found in Scripture itself, namely the word “homoousion.” It is by no means ‘absurd’ (your word) to say that the Church can rely on the promise of Christ himself to “be with you always.”

I mean that even if the Scriptures themselves were to say: “What is written here is the inspired and inerrant Word of God,” that in itself would not guarantee that they were, in fact, the ‘inspired and inerrant word of God.’ There must be corroborative witness. Catholics believe that witness lies in

1. the integrity of the manuscript evidence – taken in itself without reference to any validation by the Church
2. the consonance of the known belief of the early Church as witnessed from early non-scriptural writings and the content of the New Testament (i.e., the Resurrection)
3. the identification of what the NT says the Church will be and what the early Church was as known from the Early Church Fathers
4. the collation and ratification of the 27 books of the NT by councils of the Church in the 4th Century
5. the historical continuity of that Church with the Catholic Church as she is today.

In other words, “If the Bible says it, it must be true” is an admirable faith statement but a flimsy ground for that faith.
But you DO look to ‘religion’ and to tradition to back up what Jesus said and did because without the Church you would not know what the Bible IS. The respected Protestant teacher, Dr. R. C. Sproul, has an excellent essay on the canonicity of Scripture that you might try to find. While affirming the authority of the early Church to determine the canon of Scripture, he ultimately comes down to a perplexing conundrum: “For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books while for Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”

There is nothing in Acts 4:19 about contradicting Jesus’ words. Again, you seem to be reading a layer into the text which the text does not support. These eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, who knew that Jesus was God and the Son of God had the advantage over their hearers. They were preaching the Gospel message ***of the Church. ***Preaching the resurrection is the “tradition” – namely the handing down – of the Gospel. That is what tradition means, and Paul in I Cor 11 and 2 Thess 2 enjoins the churches to hold fast to the traditions he has taught them. They had walked, touched, eaten with a man whom only one of them had seen dead but all of them had seen resurrected. Remember the only traditions Jesus condemns are those that ‘make void the word of God.’ For Christians, as Paul tell us, the Tradition is the word of God living in the Church.

For fear of repeating myself, I Will refer you to the past post that I answered in regard to most of your comments, however I appreciate the length of effort you went to, I am beginning to realise that the Catholic hymm book you all use is unquestionable and regardless of the constant errors found in the Catholic teachings when messured against the word of God (the Bible the infalible word of God) because Your tradition is of higher reputation and regard than the Bible. albeit it comes to you as hear say just as the Bible does to us???

Peace to you

 

[revmarty]

Where in the Bible does the Bible teach “sola Scriptura?”

If this is a core doctrine of your faith, shouldn’t it be found in Scripture? (Hint: it isn’t.)

Fact is, sola Scriptura was a necessity of the Reformation. The Bible and the Church are inseparable. Scripture derives its power from the heart of the Church, which is the Person of Jesus Christ.

No your right the Catholics created that one as well. but you were all using it so I wanted to, is that ok.

MARTY

 

[revmarty]

Do you think our Lord was lying when He said this:

once again you lack understanding the Lord in John 6 was referring to the spiritul not the Physical, verse 63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

and Jesus never taugh transubstantiation you are in direct contradition with scripture not that that matters to the C.Church

and in Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.”

his body was broken once not continually.

Marty

 

[lak611]

once again you lack understanding the Lord in John 6 was referring to the spiritul not the Physical, verse 63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

and Jesus never taugh transubstantiation you are in direct contradition with scripture not that that matters to the C.Church

and in Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.”

his body was broken once not continually.

Marty

So do you believe that Jesus was confused and contradicted Himself? He said “eat My Flesh and drink My Blood”. He did not say “a spiritual symbol of My Flesh and Blood”.

 

[revmarty]

So do you believe that Jesus was confused and contradicted Himself? He said “eat My Flesh and drink My Blood”. He did not say “a spiritual symbol of My Flesh and Blood”.

you still don’t see it? it is the same chapter and in context, Jesus is never confussed, we do that, but it indicates here that Jesus is saying don’t really eat my Body or my Blood, it is spiritual in it application, communion is a memorium.

Marty

 

[lak611]

you still don’t see it? it is the same chapter and in context, Jesus is never confussed, we do that, but it indicates here that Jesus is saying don’t really eat my Body or my Blood, it is spiritual in it application, communion is a memorium.

Marty

What is spiritual or metaphorical about this?

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

 

[Zooey]

So can I still call my fahter pop. Or are pop and dad out to? Should I call him Mr. Mowry or would that be giving him too much honor?
Maybe I’ll just stick with “hey you”.Chuck

Well, pop is right out: It means Papa, & papa is the same as father; ditto to dad.
Since “Mr” is the same as “master”, I think we’re all going to have to settle for “hey you”, if we listen to MfM!!

The problem is, you’re placing the emphasis on the wrong word here. Let’s look at the verse again:

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

You are interpreting this verse this way:

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

I suggest your interpretation is off. To rightly divide the word, you should interpret the verse thusly:

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

See how much better that is? God is the only one you should call “father”.

Your male parent (and all other men), you need to call “mother”. Scripture forbids anything otherwise.

This is the only true, correct, and infallible interpretation of this verse. I declare it so, and like Martin Luther himself, I am led by the Holy Ghost. Amen.

:bowdown2:

Galileo was labeled a heretic therefore outside of the church where in that era there was no salvation,therefore his issue was of faith and morals and the church was wrong, according to canon he lost his salvation.

[SIGN]
Piffle-Poofle! Pfui!!
[/SIGN]
You need to read what really happened with Galileo, not what somebody told you happened with Galileo…Which, now that I think of it, may be a problem for you, since nowhere is the story of Galileo in the Bible, & since we are supposed to ignore every other source… OK, we have to throw that whole subject out entirely!! We can never know what happened to Galileo, because it is not included in the canon of Scripture, as personally interpreted by MfM. Well, that… stinks.

 

[revmarty]

Well, pop is right out: It means Papa, & papa is the same as father; ditto to dad.
Since “Mr” is the same as “master”, I think we’re all going to have to settle for “hey you”, if we listen to MfM!!

:bowdown2:

[SIGN]
Piffle-Poofle! Pfui!!
[/SIGN]
You need to read what really happened with Galileo, not what somebody told you happened with Galileo…Which, now that I think of it, may be a problem for you, since nowhere is the story of Galileo in the Bible, & since we are supposed to ignore every other source… OK, we have to throw that whole subject out entirely!! We can never know what happened to Galileo, because it is not included in the canon of Scripture, as personally interpreted by MfM. Well, that… stinks.

Has Galileo been authorized, sanitized and caninized by the Catholic church fathers, if not no one should be raising this subject or maybe we should discuss Martin Luther?