How are we saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJ59
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you really think you have the ability to interpret revelations? As passed down, these are the interpretation is as follows;

Rev. 18:4 3-24] Rome is condemned for her immorality, symbol of idolatry (see the note on Rev 14:4), and for persecuting the church; cf Rev 19:2.

4 [4] Depart from her: not evacuation of the city but separation from sinners, as always in apocalyptic literature.

Rev. 19:2 [1,3,4,6] Alleluia: found only here in the New Testament, this frequent exclamation of praise in the Hebrew psalms was important in Jewish liturgy.

2 [5-10] A victory song follows, sung by the entire church, celebrating the marriage of the Lamb, the union of the Messiah with the community of the elect.

3 [7] The wedding day of the Lamb: symbol of God’s reign about to begin ( Rev 21:1- 22:5); see the note on Rev 10:7. His bride: the church; cf 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-27. Marriage is one of the biblical metaphors used to describe the covenant relationship between God and his people; cf Hosea 2:16-22; Isaiah 54:5-6; 62:5; Ezekiel 16:6-14. Hence, idolatry and apostasy are viewed as adultery and harlotry ( Hosea 2:4-13; Ezekiel 16:15-63); see the note on Rev 14:4.

You relate these things to the Church yet if you paid attention to the verses you would see the Church is who is giving praises. Do you think they would be offering praise for being condemned? You still have no answers for my previous posts I take it.
The irony in their accusations is they say the Catholic Church is not mentioned anywhere in scriptures. Then they take some symbolicism out of context to say there is a Catholic Church. 🤷

The whole time they do this, they cannot show any lineage to their “Church” prior to the 1500s.
 
Being a Roman catholic does not make one a christian, and being a protestant does not make one a christian. Ralph
That wasn’t my question, or your answer is not a response. I apologize for the confusion and will try to better articulate the question.

Do you believe Catholicism is a Christian religion?
 
You think the word of God in the following passages refers to the person of Jesus himself and not to the spoken or written word? Take a closer look:

Luke 8:11"… The seed is the word of God. …15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."

Ephesians 6:17 “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; **it **judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
How does a book judge anything? Isn’t Jesus the judge?
 
Titus 1:16 “They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.”

LITERAL TRANSLATION WOULD BE - WORKS WITHOUT FAITH IS NOTHING

1 John 2:4 “He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

LITERAL TRANSLATION WOULD BE - YOU HAVE NO FAITH IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE
OF GOD THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO TRUTH
OF HIM AT ALL.
Faith without works is dead would be a more accurate translation and is consistent with the message of James 2.
 
The Book just happens to be God’s Word, and is able to judge.
Peace, Golfjack
 
According to your private interpretation. Scriptures quite clearly show that Peter rose up and stood up in controversies.
Rising up and speaking does not constitute being THE leader of the whole church on earth and what is triking is the overlooked obvious: not a single writer in the NT nor any scenario in which others are speaking in the NT refer to Peter as HEAD of the church.
Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 2:14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words.
Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no
Act 8:21 Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter. For thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no
Act 10:44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
Act 10:45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.
Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no
Notice Peter does not say “God made choice among us that I shold be the HEAD of the church.”
Act 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land,
Act 5:2 And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles.
Act 5:3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost and by fraud keep part of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.
Act 5:5 And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.
Act 5:6 And the young men rising up, removed him, and carrying him out, buried him.
Act 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in.
Act 5:8 And Peter said to her: Tell me, woman, whether you sold the land for so much? And she said: Yea, for so much.
Act 5:9 And Peter said unto her: Why have you agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door: and they shall carry thee out,
Act 5:10 Immediately, she fell down before his feet and gave up the ghost. And the young men coming in found her dead: and carried her out and buried her by her husband.
Act 5:11 And there came great fear upon the whole church and upon all that heard these things.
Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no
Only those seeking an authority for themselves, or attempting to justify their authority, deny what scriptures show us, in my opinion.
Scripture shows us that Peter was an apostle. Does it show us Peter was THE head of the church? no
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
This is Paul speaking. Are you saying he was the head of the church?? Are you saying Paul was acting/speaking on the authority of Peter or only of Christ?
Show me an instance where a man appointed/ordained himself in scriptures
Who ordained or appointed Paul? Was it Peter or was it Christ alone? When did Peter ever authorize or appoint anyone to do anything?
 
My question was where does the Bible say the NT is inspired
These verses do not say the 27 books of the NT constitute part of the word of God and are thus inspired
There is no scripture I know that says “there are 27 inspired books in the NT.”
The Bible does not tell us what the NT is
So who did tell us what the NT is?
The Holy Spirit?
Who told us it had 27 books?
See above
Who told us this NT is part of the word of God?
And if the Holy Spirit who did He tell?
As you said, the Holy Spirit told us. And he told everyone who reads the NT. How do I know this is true?

Luke 8:11"… The seed is the word of God. …15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."

Ephesians 6:17 “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
 
The Book just happens to be God’s Word, and is able to judge.
Code:
      Peace,   Golfjack
The bible is a teaching tool created by the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to help people achieve their salvation, which is the sole mission of the Catholic Church. How exactly does a book judge anyone? It has no mind, no soul , no hands, no eyes…
 
There is no scripture I know that says “there are 27 inspired books in the NT.”
Dainel, the point is, the New Testament, or the sole authority as some Protestants refer to it, does not tell us any of the books that belong in the New Testament. That decision was made by another authority, the Church Christ built and promised to be with until the consummation of the world.
As you said, the Holy Spirit told us. And he told everyone who reads the NT. How do I know this is true?

Luke 8:11"… The seed is the word of God. …15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."

Ephesians 6:17 “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
There you go using scriptures to fit your view. Where do any of those verses specifically say the written word only?

Let’s suppose for a moment, that those scriptures do really mean only the written word. The only scriptures recognized as sacred scriptures at that time was the Old Testament. Since the authors of the New Testament did not tell us that their specific writing was sacred scripture, we have to assume some did not consider their writings as anymore than instructions to the recipients.

Just using the examples you use above, those scriptures were not written by eye witnesses to Christ. What they learned, they learned through an oral tradition.

The New Testament has several examples of oral tradition.

When Christ spoke of the chair of Moses, He did not explain what the chair was. It’s apparent the crowd knew what He was speaking about as the Chair of Moses is not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.


Another example of oral tradition is found in the writings of St. Luke. Remember, St. Paul nor St. Luke were eye witnesses of Christ, yet he wrote words Christ spoke, that were not written anywhere else in scriptures. (Also think about this, St. Luke nor St. Mark were eye witnesses to Christ, yet they wrote two Gospels, they wrote what they heard through oral tradtion.)

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.

St. Paul also wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

St. Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

There was clearly another authority to learn from.

As for your example that the Holy Spirit gives us the answers, or interpretations, why would the Holy Spirit give thousands of denominations different interpretations?
 
Rising up and speaking does not constitute being THE leader of the whole church on earth and what is triking is the overlooked obvious: not a single writer in the NT nor any scenario in which others are speaking in the NT refer to Peter as HEAD of the church.

Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no

Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no

Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no

Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no
Notice Peter does not say “God made choice among us that I shold be the HEAD of the church.”

Apostle? yes; THE head of the church? no

Scripture shows us that Peter was an apostle. Does it show us Peter was THE head of the church? no

This is Paul speaking. Are you saying he was the head of the church?? Are you saying Paul was acting/speaking on the authority of Peter or only of Christ?

Who ordained or appointed Paul? Was it Peter or was it Christ alone? When did Peter ever authorize or appoint anyone to do anything?
Where does scripture tell us that anyone did not think Peter was the leader as they had witnessed his appointed by Christ? That’s a fair question. Sola scriptura is not in the Bible, but you believe it. Private interpretation is taught against in the Bible, but you believe that. No offense, but it seems you pick and choose what you want to believe to fit your theology. We fit our theology to scriptures and oral tradition.

Why would the Apostle write about something everyone knew and believed? There are many letters of correction in the Bible, but none say, “You are mistaken, Peter is just an Apostle and not the leader.”

When the early Church fathers realized a teaching or belief was in jeopardy, they wrote about it, but you reject that because those writings were not scriptures. Show us any writings that confirm your Church is the Church built.

Where does any scriptures tell us to appoint or ordain ourselves to assume an authority?
Give me one instance of any one in the New Testament appointing themself or another to an authority position to make eccumenical decisions in the Church. You demand the scriptures to specifically say, “Peter was the leader.” Now you try a strawman discussion and show us where scriptures say, “Annoint yourself to be a leader and teacher.”

Christ appointed Paul and sent him where He wanted him. The Apostles, led by the Holy Spirit, approved Paul.

I don’t believe the arguments you are putting forth will sell any of your books, especially to the people on these forums. :rolleyes:
 
Daniel,
you have SO Much invested in stating that Peter was not the leader of the church, because you realize that if he is, that you must become Catholic to follow the word of God. After all, if Peter was set up as leader, why aren’t you following his church? Frankly, To paraphrase the words of Jesus to Saint Paul on the Road to Damascus, You are kicking against the Goad. What good does it do you to fight against the truth? Doesn’t that only condemn you? Come into the light…

Lets summarize what we learned in the long thread on St. Peter.
Simon was named the Rock (Peter in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic) and on this Rock Jesus built the church. He gave Simon the keys to heaven and the ability to bind and lose.
After his resurrection (John 21), Peter is given the mission to tend Jesus’s flocks.
In Acts, Peter clearly demonstrates his leadership role, defining the need to replace Judas amoung the Apostles, he spoke for the Apostles at Pentecost. He was the one who told the 3000 converts that they must be baptized. He was the one who healed the lame man and then spoke to the crowds, the high priest and the sanhedrin for the apostles. He was the one who brought the first Gentiles in to the church and he was the one who defined the dogma that Christians didn’t have to follow the Jewish laws at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
In Galatians 2, St. Paul acknowledges that Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and in Acts 15, Peter claims the leadership of the Apostles to the Gentiles as well, a point that is not disputed. This clearly means that Peter is the leader of the Apostles for everyone (jew and gentile alike)
In Galatians, Paul talks of seeking out Peter before he starts his mission (alone amoung the apostles) and the 14 years later, he goes back to him to insure that he has not and is not running in vain. this clearly demonstrates that he thinks Peter is the leader.

In 2 Peter, Peter critiques the epistles of St. Paul, something he would not do if he wasn’t the leader.

Finally, it is clear that Peter is second only to Christ in the new testament. he is mentioned 195 times vs 29 times for the next most mentioned Apostle (John). We follow his story in parallel to the passion and throughout the first half of Acts. Why would this be, if he was just another apostle?

In addition, there is 2000 years of tradition that Peter was the first Pope.

Dan, as hard as it is for you, you must recognize that the evidence for Peter being the leader of the Apostles is overwhelming. You spent a month trying to refute it, but even you must recognize that your most used argument (It never says that Peter is the leader in scripture) is both untrue and easily refuted as shown above and extremely week since it argues that specific wording wasn’t used, when in fact the actions Peter and others took could’nt be more clear…
 
Daniel,
you have SO Much invested in stating that Peter was not the leader of the church, because you realize that if he is, that you must become Catholic to follow the word of God. After all, if Peter was set up as leader, why aren’t you following his church? Frankly, To paraphrase the words of Jesus to Saint Paul on the Road to Damascus, You are kicking against the Goad. What good does it do you to fight against the truth? Doesn’t that only condemn you? Come into the light…

Lets summarize what we learned in the long thread on St. Peter.
Simon was named the Rock (Peter in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic) and on this Rock Jesus built the church. He gave Simon the keys to heaven and the ability to bind and lose.
These beliefs jeopardize a pastor’s authority, and possibly income, as well as an author’s ability to sell books he’s already written.
 
These beliefs jeopardize a pastor’s authority, and possibly income, as well as an author’s ability to sell books he’s already written.
Don’t be so cynical. Lets Give Dan the benefit of the doubt that he is truly trying to find the truth. Afterall, giving up everything you have previously held to be true is not to be done lightly and requires considerable thought, prayer and fortitude. We need to respect that. Let’s let Dan work through the issues for himself in his own time. In the Interim, all we can do is point him in the right direction and let the Spirit do its work.
 
Don’t be so cynical. Lets Give Dan the benefit of the doubt that he is truly trying to find the truth. Afterall, giving up everything you have previously held to be true is not to be done lightly and requires considerable thought, prayer and fortitude. We need to respect that. Let’s let Dan work through the issues for himself in his own time. In the Interim, all we can do is point him in the right direction and let the Spirit do its work.
You are right and I stand corrected and apologize.

There is no excuse, but I offer my situation so you might understand. I work in EMS and just got called in for a 72 hour shift, that was originally two 24 hour shifts with a break in between. Now, I’m trying to put in the last responses I will be able too for the next 3 days and get everything packed that I will need.

I myself have noticed I am more cynical after a long shift and thank you for pointing out my cynicism prior to a long shift.

I would appreciate prayers that I may be able to respond to my calls fast, safe, professional and with compassion. Don’t forget the prayers for those who need our response.
 
How in the world can Catholic teachings be Holy Spirit inspired? When they teach that there is a purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, mary was born without sin, Holy Communion is actually the flresh and blood of Jesus, the seven sacraments lead to salvation, mortal and veniel sin, your church has replaced Israel, and many other teachings that are not scriptural, how can these things be led by the Holy Spirit? You see, No way.
Peace, Golfjack
 
The Bible is infallible. Is your private interpretation infallible? If so, show us the scriptures that tell us that YOUR private interpretation is infallible and correct over all others…
Just a clarification:

The Bible is inerrant. It is without error regarding faith and morals. (It can have geographical errors, scientific errors, etc.)

Interpretation of the Bible can be either infallible (not capable of making a mistake or being deceived) which the Catholic Church claims for itself, or it can be fallible (liable to be erroneous or inaccurate) which is what happens when persons individually interpret Scriptures using their own understanding alone.
 
Her, Babylon, is Rome.

Now answer my question, as you said you would and one more question. Who do you think Her, Babylon is?
Babylon is not Christian Rome. It could have been pagan Rome. However, some scholars think that the “great city” Babylon is Jerusalem, and they cite Revelation 11:8 as their source. “And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. Of course, there could be two “great cities” mentioned in Revelation, one referring to pagan Rome and the other to Jerusalem. 🙂
 
ProdicalSon1, This is Ed, I went back to check your method of operation. On post 302 you demand Scripture verification from Ralph, but on post 414 when Scripture is quoted, you then twist Scripture by ASSUMING to make your point. Then on post 445 again you demand Scripture from Ralph. It then becomes a no win situation doesn’t it? When you assume you are adding to Scripture which is a violation 1Cor 4:6 states learn the meaning of "don’t go beyond what’s written’. when you do, it violates Scripture. Prov.30:6, Duet 12:32, Rev 22:18 adds punishment!
Prodical Son 1 this is what’s being quoted by Daniel on post 414. Acts 17:10-12 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. (KJV) YOU THEN REPLY,
after searching the Scripture, MANY of them believed. That implies that MANY of them did not. They searched the same Scriptures, and yet disagreed. And, we can assume that the Greeks probably did not search the Scriptures at all, yet a “number of them” believed MY REPLY TO YOU IS,Who gives you the authority to ASSUME that many did not believe? " There were many that believed. That’s a statement. How many who know? That would refute your ASSUMING. That’s why Scripture tells us not to go beyond what’s written. Another method used by you, when a single question is asked of you which could prove you wrong, you respond with a page full of Scriptures. Why? two or three would be sufficient. By the time one reads all the Sriptures that you quote, the original question is lost from memory. In essence, that will mute him for a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top