I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[Rightlydivide]

I’d say, you must believe in this:

But with your explanation of how your Church arrives at an interpretation there is nothing to show your Church has the authority to declare it’s interpretation correct over any other interpretation. It seems to be a ‘generalized’ private interpretation and when there are disagreements, you don’t debate it and let it lie. There doesn’t seem to be an answer in that style of study, at least in my opinion.

You say ‘historically, it did seem to just happen’. That is short of it being a scriptural teaching, again, at least in my opinion, and it’s short of an explanation of how generation after generation arrived at an interpretation when Bibles were not widely owned by the majority…

Thank you for answering.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do confess my sins, to God, through Jesus! And while my father was alive, I called him Dad. And Christ did refer to Abraham as the father of the Israelites. And we see nothing wrong with NOT having Mary or the saints pray for us. How does the Lord’s Prayer go again: Our Father, which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name…! And there is more than one interpretation of John 20:20-23. It does not necessarily mean tha we MUST confess our sins(only God can forgive sins) to a mortal man. I know there was not punctuation in the early days, but I believe that one reason that capitalization was used(such as Father, God, Him, etc.) was to distinguish God from earthly fathers. So, in other words, it is okay for you to call the pope, holy father, but not Holy Father, that would be blasphemous!

And the Apostles referred to father Abraham. Did they contradict Christ’s teaching? Are the scriptures invalid when we see Apostles write father for other people?

Why did Christ give the men He chose and appointed over His Church the authority to forgive and retain sins? It means exactly what it says, especially in light of reading they had the authority to bind and loose on earth with a promise it would be so in heaven. Seems when you read scriptures with scriptures, other interpretations are sought to make it something else. That seems to be attempts to fit the scriptures to a theology as opposed to one fitting their theology to scriptures.

Calling a man father, as in spiritual father, or teacher is permissible. Again, the context thing is used only to degrade the Church that had the scriptures for hundreds and hundreds of years. How do you suppose you understand the interpretation better than the Church that caused it to be in your hands today?

 

[1beleevr]

There you go twisting what I believe. Does that make you feel like you’ve made a ‘valid’ point?

I have difficulty in accepting every person assuming the authority granted to men Christ chose and appointed over His Church, and those they chose and appointed through Apostolic succession, and all claiming the Holy Spirit ‘empowers’ them to be in a position of authority. There is not one example of this in scriptures. It is one of those ‘man made’ traditions.

You can always prove me wrong. Show me where Christ made such promises to the ‘multitudes’. Show me where Christ commanded the multitudes to go out and teach and preach.

Those who claim the same ‘discipleship’ as the Apostles, have assumed an authority upon themselves, because they choose to read scriptures out of context, of who what was said too./QUOTE
It’s only because you always say that people cannot appoint or lead themselves; when I say that the Holy Spirit guides me in my Christian walk, please don’t deny that! And why did Jesus say,“Go ye therefore into all nations, making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost?” What were those disciples supposed to do, after they became disciples? B-I-N-G-O! Make other disciples,“teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you!” What are witnesses for and disciples of Christ supposed to do today?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s only because you always say that people cannot appoint or lead themselves; when I say that the Holy Spirit guides me in my Christian walk, please don’t deny that! And why did Jesus say,“Go ye therefore into all nations, making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost?” What were those disciples supposed to do, after they became disciples? B-I-N-G-O! Make other disciples,“teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you!” What are witnesses for and disciples of Christ supposed to do today?

Where in scriptures did anyone appoint themselves to an authority position in the Church?

The Holy Spirit does lead all Christians in their walk of faith. This however does not extend us to positions of authority. We cannot appoint ourselves to teach or preach the Gospel or make doctrinal decisions in the Church.

Jesus did say, ‘Go ye therefore into all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ But, read that passage in context of who Christ was speaking too. Was it the multitudes? No. Was it the men He chose and appointed over His Church? YES.

Edited: Christ did not say, Christ did not tell them ‘making disciples’. Below is the passage referenced.

Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Now, because they were to make ‘disciples’ is no BINGO unless one wants to assume an authority upon themself. Like I’ve said repeatedly, and challenged you and others to produce scriptures proving me wrong, Christ never appointed the multitudes. Christ never told the multitudes to go out and ‘teach’ or ‘preach’. Christ never told the ‘multitudes’ to go out or to make disciples. Christ never made a ‘multitude’ disciples, in the authoritative manner of which I am trying to explain. We are not all Apostles, disciples or anything granting us authority to make doctrinal decisions, act in authority in the Church, settle disputes, perform sacraments, etc. etc.

 

[1beleevr]

Are you serious? Of course in the beginning, there was a lot of ‘street ministries’. It wasn’t ‘snap’ and there were the buildings. As you reference Acts 2, think about it, the Apostles were in the upper room and Pentecost happened, giving them the courage to take to the streets and preach confidently. Remember, Christians were persecuted for several hundred years, under a penalty of death. So the Church operated pretty much in people’s houses, or ‘underground’, so to speak. Read all of Acts, and the Paul’s writings. They were arrested and beaten.

The term ‘Catholic’ means ‘universal’. It doesn’t take away that that’s the name the Church took for itself, and it truly became the ‘universal’ Church, which is worldwide. There were no ‘Protestant’ Churches until the reformation, which took place in the 1500s. Up until 1054, there was only the ‘Catholic’ Church. That’s when the great schism took place and then we had the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, both with very close doctrines, both too ‘Catholic’ for the modern day thinkers who reject Catholicism.

When you read Paul’s letters of corrections, you see evidence of a more uniformed service, especially in reference to the Eucharist, or ‘Lord’s Supper’.

Christ built ONE Church. Paul wrote letters to many locations, but all the same Church. This is evident by the letters he wrote, all with the same teachings. The Church wasn’t ‘invisible’, or groups of believers with different teachings/doctrines. When you see differences addressed in scriptures, it’s because there are corrections being made to make them all of the same mind and judgement; of the same accord.

Look at the council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. All the Churches came together to make decisions, together and as ONE.

The Church was ONE, as it was meant to be, as scriptures tell us it was.

Are you serious? So, what Peter did was an altar call? Do they do things like that(Acts 2:38-39) in the catholic church today, and if not, why not? Why are n’t youycalled “universalists”? So you mean to tell me, that because I say that I can read and understand scripture(such as 2Samuel 14:14) and understand what I am reading(without the help of a priest) thanks to the Holy Spitit living in me; that I am appointing myself or changing doctrine? What, pray tell, doctrine(s) have I changed? While I am not a teacher or preacher(officially, anyway), I am a witness for Christ, and can and do share the Gospel, with whomever God puts in my path! In your job, are you able to, and do you share the Good News with others? I don’t mean tell them about catholicism, but about Jesus! Someday, His church will be one, when we all attend the perfect wedding; I can’t wait until our Bridegroom comes to claim US!

 

[1beleevr]

Where in scriptures did anyone appoint themselves to an authority position in the Church?

The Holy Spirit does lead all Christians in their walk of faith. This however does not extend us to positions of authority. We cannot appoint ourselves to teach or preach the Gospel or make doctrinal decisions in the Church.

Jesus did say, ‘Go ye therefore into all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ But, read that passage in context of who Christ was speaking too. Was it the multitudes? No. Was it the men He chose and appointed over His Church? YES.

Edited: Christ did not say, Christ did not tell them ‘making disciples’. Below is the passage referenced.

Now, because they were to make ‘disciples’ is no BINGO unless one wants to assume an authority upon themself. Like I’ve said repeatedly, and challenged you and others to produce scriptures proving me wrong, Christ never appointed the multitudes. Christ never told the multitudes to go out and ‘teach’ or ‘preach’. Christ never told the ‘multitudes’ to go out or to make disciples. Christ never made a ‘multitude’ disciples, in the authoritative manner of which I am trying to explain. We are not all Apostles, disciples or anything granting us authority to make doctrinal decisions, act in authority in the Church, settle disputes, perform sacraments, etc. etc.

So, you left out the part about"make them My disciples," and tell them to obey all I have commanded you? Are you not a disciple of Christ? If not, are you merely a follower? How do you serve Him?(Mark 10:45) Do you yuorself, in your spare time, feed the homeless, visit prisoners, or comfort widows?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you serious? So, what Peter did was an altar call? Do they do things like that(Acts 2:38-39) in the catholic church today, and if not, why not? Why are n’t youycalled “universalists”? So you mean to tell me, that because I say that I can read and understand scripture(such as 2Samuel 14:14) and understand what I am reading(without the help of a priest) thanks to the Holy Spitit living in me; that I am appointing myself or changing doctrine? What, pray tell, doctrine(s) have I changed? While I am not a teacher or preacher(officially, anyway), I am a witness for Christ, and can and do share the Gospel, with whomever God puts in my path! In your job, are you able to, and do you share the Good News with others? I don’t mean tell them about catholicism, but about Jesus! Someday, His church will be one, when we all attend the perfect wedding; I can’t wait until our Bridegroom comes to claim US!

A street ministry, or preaching in the street, because the Church was just beginning and there was no building, is far short of an ‘altar call’. Yes, what a silly question. Catholicism has taken the message of Christ around the world. Don’t you know any history?

If you derive a private interpretation and then teach others according to your interpretation, you have assumed an authority position. Read Nehemiah 8 and tell me how the people were caused to understand the scriptures. I also notice you’re not going to touch on points like the two on the road to Emmaus, who knew Christ and scriptures, yet He had to open their hearts to what was written.

Just stop it, and show me where the doctrines of private interpretation is in scriptures. As you say, if it’s not in scriptures, it a man made tradition. It’s that simple. Show the me doctrine written in scriptures. I have shown multiple examples of scriptures teaching against it. How is it now justified?

See, more deliberate twisting of my points. I guess it would be just too much to understand, much less appear to agree with a Catholic. We, as Christians, are called to a ‘royal priesthood’, to share that ‘good news’ which is in us. This doesn’t mean we can perform sacraments, make eccumenical decisions, etc. I’m sorry, but you are deliberatly twisting most everything I say and I find that, in itself, to be most dishonest.

You don’t know, or understand, Catholicism well enough to tell anyone about it.

The Church was ONE when Christ built it. Man separated it. Again, I provided scriptures showing the Church was meant to be one, but you overlooked it somehow.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, you left out the part about"make them My disciples," and tell them to obey all I have commanded you? Are you not a disciple of Christ? If not, are you merely a follower? How do you serve Him?(Mark 10:45) Do you yuorself, in your spare time, feed the homeless, visit prisoners, or comfort widows?

What just a minute, I provided the passage and it didn’t say anything about ‘making disciples’. I didn’t remove anything. If I posted the wrong passage than the one you were referring too, please have the decency to provide it and quit make remarks like I am doing such a thing.

You know nothing about me and I’m not here to ‘brag’ on what I do. That is between me and God.

 

[guanophore]

I realize that there is a faction, which believes that there is only ONE way to read and interpret scripture, thus the division among Christians!

The Catholic Church does not believe and teach this idea.

The divisions among Christians result from departure from the Apostolic Tradition, not the reading of scripture. The Catholic Church encourages everyone to read scripture every day.

Since the catholics did not write or interpret the Old Testament, they houldn’t be able to tell us if we are misinterpreting scripture.

The reason this is not the case is because Jesus spent a lot of time carefully teaching His A’postles how to understand the scripture. They taught this to their disciples, and it has been preserved in the catholic church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Catholic Church does not believe and teach this idea.

The divisions among Christians result from departure from the Apostolic Tradition, not the reading of scripture. The Catholic Church encourages everyone to read scripture every day.

The reason this is not the case is because Jesus spent a lot of time carefully teaching His A’postles how to understand the scripture. They taught this to their disciples, and it has been preserved in the catholic church.

It’s almost like he’s looking for any ‘loophole’ he can find, isn’t it?

 

[1beleevr]

A street ministry, or preaching in the street, because the Church was just beginning and there was no building, is far short of an ‘altar call’. Yes, what a silly question. Catholicism has taken the message of Christ around the world. Don’t you know any history?

If you derive a private interpretation and then teach others according to your interpretation, you have assumed an authority position. Read Nehemiah 8 and tell me how the people were caused to understand the scriptures. I also notice you’re not going to touch on points like the two on the road to Emmaus, who knew Christ and scriptures, yet He had to open their hearts to what was written.

Just stop it, and show me where the doctrines of private interpretation is in scriptures. As you say, if it’s not in scriptures, it a man made tradition. It’s that simple. Show the me doctrine written in scriptures. I have shown multiple examples of scriptures teaching against it. How is it now justified?

See, more deliberate twisting of my points. I guess it would be just too much to understand, much less appear to agree with a Catholic. We, as Christians, are called to a ‘royal priesthood’, to share that ‘good news’ which is in us. This doesn’t mean we can perform sacraments, make eccumenical decisions, etc. I’m sorry, but you are deliberatly twisting most everything I say and I find that, in itself, to be most dishonest.

You don’t know, or understand, Catholicism well enough to tell anyone about it.

The Church was ONE when Christ built it. Man separated it. Again, I provided scriptures showing the Church was meant to be one, but you overlooked it somehow.

Who says you need a building to reach the people with the Gospel? And were you able to see that 2Samuel 14:14 was a reference to Jesus? Read Matthew 28:19 and 20, and you will see the verse about making people disciples of Christ. And believe i or not, there are some catholics i do agree with on certain points! You are very uptight, and think that if someone disagrees with you, they are deliberately twisting your words! Sheeeeez! Imagine that, man separating something that God put together? And sharing with others, your service to the King, is not bragging, it’s pure joy. I am still bubbling over from feeding the homeless tonight, and sharing Jesus with many of them; what a privilege to do His work! Why do you have such a problem with me being able to understand the scriptures I read? And like it or not, Peter did an altar call that day

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who says you need a building to reach the people with the Gospel? And were you able to see that 2Samuel 14:14 was a reference to Jesus? Read Matthew 28:19 and 20, and you will see the verse about making people disciples of Christ. And believe i or not, there are some catholics i do agree with on certain points! You are very uptight, and think that if someone disagrees with you, they are deliberately twisting your words! Sheeeeez! Imagine that, man separating something that God put together? And sharing with others, your service to the King, is not bragging, it’s pure joy. I am still bubbling over from feeding the homeless tonight, and sharing Jesus with many of them; what a privilege to do His work! Why do you have such a problem with me being able to understand the scriptures I read? And like it or not, Peter did an altar call that day

The Old foretold the New and the New fulfilled the Old. Did Jesus, or did He not, teach in the Temple and synagogues?

Douay-Rheims Bible

**Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. **

King James Version Bible

**Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: **

King James Version (with Strong’s numbers)

**Mat 28:18 AndG2532 JesusG2424 cameG4334 and spakeG2980 unto them,G846 saying,G3004 AllG3956 powerG1849 is givenG1325 unto meG3427 inG1722 heavenG3772 andG2532 inG1909 earth.G1093
Mat 28:19 GoG4198 ye therefore,G3767 and teachG3100 allG3956 nations,G1484 baptizingG907 themG846 inG1519 theG3588 nameG3686 of theG3588 Father,G3962 andG2532 of theG3588 Son,G5207 andG2532 of theG3588 HolyG40 Ghost:G4151 **

Knowing you’re probably using a modern language Bible, I am providing the Greek word where you get ‘disciple’.

G3100
μαθητεύω
mathēteuō
math-ayt-yoo’-o
From G3101; intransitively to become a pupil; transitively to disciple, that is, enrol as scholar: - be disciple, instruct, teach.

In the sense it’s used, it’s not ‘appoint’ or ‘ordain’.

Peter did not have an ‘altar’ call. They were in the streets, there was no altar. It maybe semantics.

Being bubbly? What did Christ teach about doing good deeds and speaking about them? Like I said, what ‘works’ I do is between me and God. He knows what’s in my heart.

On understanding scriptures, how many interpretations have been derived from people ‘understanding’ scriptures? When you have more than one interpretation, someone only ‘thinks’ they understand the scriptures.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

Please answer the following questions.

1. 
   *]Why does the inspired word of God say the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures?
   
   *]Why does the inspired word of God say the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church, instead of scriptures?
   
   *]Why did Christ tell the Apostles that disputes should be taken the to Church, instead of scriptures?
   
   *]Why does the inspired word of God tell us to hold to the tradtions taught, whether by word or epistle?
   
   As for being uptight, there have been several occasions now that you’ve ‘twisted’ my words giving an appearance that I was saying something I was not. Once or twice, ok, but you’ve done it numerous times. I am sharing the Catholic faith. It’s what I believe and I don’t appreciate it when people speak ill of it in ‘veiled’ worded statements. We do not ‘blaspheme’, we only worship God and most of all, we ARE Christians.
   
   Look at your last comment in your post. ‘Like it or not…’ That is very snide and condescending. I love the Bible and everything written in it. There’s nothing I do NOT like about it. OK?

 

[1beleevr]

The Old foretold the New and the New fulfilled the Old. Did Jesus, or did He not, teach in the Temple and synagogues?

Douay-Rheims Bible

King James Version Bible

King James Version (with Strong’s numbers)

Knowing you’re probably using a modern language Bible, I am providing the Greek word where you get ‘disciple’.

G3100
μαθητεύω
mathēteuō
math-ayt-yoo’-o
From G3101; intransitively to become a pupil; transitively to disciple, that is, enrol as scholar: - be disciple, instruct, teach.

In the sense it’s used, it’s not ‘appoint’ or ‘ordain’.

Peter did not have an ‘altar’ call. They were in the streets, there was no altar. It maybe semantics.

Being bubbly? What did Christ teach about doing good deeds and speaking about them? Like I said, what ‘works’ I do is between me and God. He knows what’s in my heart.

On understanding scriptures, how many interpretations have been derived from people ‘understanding’ scriptures? When you have more than one interpretation, someone only ‘thinks’ they understand the scriptures.

Please answer the following questions.

1. 
   *]Why does the inspired word of God say the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures?
   
   *]Why does the inspired word of God say the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church, instead of scriptures?
   
   *]Why did Christ tell the Apostles that disputes should be taken the to Church, instead of scriptures?
   
   *]Why does the inspired word of God tell us to hold to the tradtions taught, whether by word or epistle?
   
   As for being uptight, there have been several occasions now that you’ve ‘twisted’ my words giving an appearance that I was saying something I was not. Once or twice, ok, but you’ve done it numerous times. I am sharing the Catholic faith. It’s what I believe and I don’t appreciate it when people speak ill of it in ‘veiled’ worded statements. We do not ‘blaspheme’, we only worship God and most of all, we ARE Christians.
   
   Look at your last comment in your post. ‘Like it or not…’ That is very snide and condescending. I love the Bible and everything written in it. There’s nothing I do NOT like about it. OK?

1. 
   When did I infer that you were not a Christian?

 

[1beleevr]

It’s almost like he’s looking for any ‘loophole’ he can find, isn’t it?

W-R-O-N-G!!!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When did I infer that you were not a Christian?

Is that your answer to my questions?

You specifically word things against me. Like the last line in the post, ‘Like it or not…’ What is that supposed to mean? Saying that calling the pope the Holy Father is ‘blasphemous’. We follow the faith according to the traditions and scriptures. How would you like it if I referred to private interpretation as ‘heresey’? I haven’t done that and wouldn’t do it. It’s not discussing in the spirit of Christian Charity required of all Christians.

Now, once again, are you going to answer those questions in my last post?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Looking for loopholes… Looking for loopholes… Looking for loopholes… :coffeeread:
Nope, I can’t find any… looks like the Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics. :sad_yes:

 

[rev_kevin]

Looking for loopholes… Looking for loopholes… Looking for loopholes… :coffeeread:
Nope, I can’t find any… looks like the Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics. :sad_yes:

The Bible was assembled, not written, by Catholics. I don’t believe there were Catholics in the OT. Also the Bible was written for all, and assembled for all. If wrong please show me where.

 

[chrisman27]

let’s see, the new testament WAS written by catholics. The protestant reformation did not come around for hundreds of years.

 

[rev_kevin]

let’s see, the new testament WAS written by catholics. The protestant reformation did not come around for hundreds of years.

But the “BIBLE” the whole thing, was not written by Catholics correct?

 

[1beleevr]

let’s see, the new testament WAS written by catholics. ThEe protestant reformation did not come around for hundreds of years.

Weren't all the disciples, with the exception of Mark, Jewish?