I'm not a Catholic because

[dingodile]

Hey dngodile…

The following passage is also irrational, which, if true, implies infallibility, if in fact we can call “all truth” infallible as opposed to fallible - correct?

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

I wouldn’t call it irrational. I do think there’s more than one plausible interpretation, though. Your interpretation, which is the one taught by the Church, is that it means that the Spirit of Truth will render the Church infallible in its teachings on faith and morals. I, however, don’t see that being guided into all truth, over time, entails that errors will not be in the mix, for reasons that I’ve already explained.

Although scholars seem to think that the author of the gospel of John is the same as the author of John’s epistles, there is little agreement as to whether that author was John himself. So we have the added uncertainty of authorship and how trustworthy the text itself is.

Do you think that all other interpretations of this passage are irrational?

 

[joe370]

I wouldn’t call it irrational. I do think there’s more than one plausible interpretation, though. Your interpretation, which is the one taught by the Church, is that it means that the Spirit of Truth will render the Church infallible in its teachings on faith and morals. I, however, don’t see that being guided into all truth, over time, entails that errors will not be in the mix, for reasons that I’ve already explained.

Although scholars seem to think that the author of the gospel of John is the same as the author of John’s epistles, there is little agreement as to whether that author was John himself. So we have the added uncertainty of authorship and how trustworthy the text itself is.

Do you think that all other interpretations of this passage are irrational?

Seems fair. A couple questions:

Is the following plausible?

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you (the apostles, representing Jesus’ church leadership) - into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you (the apostles, representing Jesus’ church leadership) - what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you (the apostles). All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you (the apostles, representing Jesus’ church leadership).

How do you specifically interpret John 16:13 regarding all truth given to the apostles, and John 14:16 regarding Jesus being with the apostles forever?

 

[Nicea325]

I wouldn’t call it irrational. I do think there’s more than one plausible interpretation, though. Your interpretation, which is the one taught by the Church, is that it means that the Spirit of Truth will render the Church infallible in its teachings on faith and morals. I, however, don’t see that being guided into all truth, over time, entails that errors will not be in the mix, for reasons that I’ve already explained.

Although scholars seem to think that the author of the gospel of John is the same as the author of John’s epistles, there is little agreement as to whether that author was John himself. So we have the added uncertainty of authorship and how trustworthy the text itself is.

Do you think that all other interpretations of this passage are irrational?

Okay,but what does the authorship of any Gospel have to do with salvation? What matters is the message,not so much if it is truly written by John or whoever.

 

[PLeeD]

How do you specifically interpret John 16:13 regarding all truth given to the apostles, and John 14:16 regarding Jesus being with the apostles forever?

The Holy Spirit is not the sole property of the apostles. The Holy Spirit does not reside solely in any one church. The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of every Christian.

How do you specifically interpret this quote from Peter at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

The Jerusalem Council

6-9 Then the apostles and the elders assembled to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them: "Brothers, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel message and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Peter himself says that God made no distinction, gaving the gentiles the Holy Spirit “just as he did to us”. Meaning, the gentiles received the Holy Spirit in the same way as did Peter and the all apostles who were at the Jerusalem Council.

I’m not Catholic because I don’t believe the Holy Spirit has protected the RCC from error. If that sort of protection truly does exist in this world, then I am of the opinion that it has been afforded to the Orthodox Church. I’m not fully convinced of that yet. But, I did attend my first Orthodox service last Sunday. It was quite moving.

 

[joe370]

Hey PLeeD, you said:

The Holy Spirit is not the sole property of the apostles. The Holy Spirit does not reside solely in any one church. The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of every Christian.

I certainly believe that the holy spirit was and continues to be, sent to each and every person upon their baptism and therefore dwells in the heart of every Christian!

Regarding John 16:13, perhaps (please correct me if I’m wrong) - you’re suggesting that a person, upon his/her baptism, due to the indwelling of the holy spirit, is guided into all truth as per John 16:13???

How do you specifically interpret this quote from Peter at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

I interpret it as the apostles and the elders being assembled in the first Council to resolve the matter that was causing division between certain people that came down from Judea to Antioch, and Paul and Barnabas, which brought both camps into sharp dispute and debate, necessitating the need for Paul and Barnabas along with some other believers, to seek the apostles and elders via council in Jerusalem, and of course after there had been much debate via council, Peter stood up and said to them: "Brothers, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel message and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

I agree with Peter: through baptism God, who knows the heart, testified to the gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did with Peter and company but not in the sense of guiding them doctrinally into all truth, otherwise, why didn’t Paul and Barnabas, via the indwelling and guidance of the holy spirit, into all truth, **simply resolve the matter themselves in Antioch?
**

I’m not Catholic because I don’t believe the Holy Spirit has protected the RCC from error.

If that sort of protection truly does exist in this world, then I am of the opinion that it has been afforded to the Orthodox Church. I’m not fully convinced of that yet. But, I did attend my first Orthodox service last Sunday. It was quite moving.

I almost chose one of the eastern orthodox churches myself, as a floundering former protestant. I too have been to their service and agree that it can be quite moving.

Eastern orthodoxy is quite wonderful, and quite apostolic in nature, with a valid Eucharist, which is really awesome in my humble opinion.

 

[Kouyate42]

Are you Hasidic? Why or why not?

I have a feeling this is a trick question for some reason...

Why are you specifically asking as to my allegiances to one form of Judaism? If I were to choose one, I’d likely find myself falling into the category of Modern Orthodox Judaism.

 

[Ahimsa]

I have a feeling this is a trick question for some reason…

Why are you specifically asking as to my allegiances to one form of Judaism? If I were to choose one, I’d likely find myself falling into the category of Modern Orthodox Judaism.

Hey, I’m a Jesus Buddhist. Why would I want to trick you? If I were Jewish, I would probably be Hasidic, at least inwardly.

 

[patmiron]

=Nicea325;8537659]Okay,but what does the authorship of any Gospel have to do with salvation? What matters is the message,not so much if it is truly written by John or whoever.

May I jump in here *

The revelance lies into where one can, may and should find the roadmap to heaven [or by default: hell.]

If the Gospels are NOT TRUE. then no road map exist; god is not real and there is no after life. On the other hand IF [and they are] the Gospels are TRUE. God exist; humanity alone with the gifts of a mind, intellect, FREEWILL atached to our souls precisely so that we may choose to know of god; then KNOW GOD, love and serve Him and Obey ALL that he God commands, as directional signs placed in the Bible to enable us and permit us to do all that is required for our afterlife.

We can know that there IS an after life because the gifts of mind, intellect, freewill and souls are ALL spiritual things that cannot die or be killed. Obviously there is a reason for this; and that reason remains to be what kind of afterlife we will have.

The truth is that if you are real: God too MUST BE:thumbsup: There is secular historical evidence of Christ, and the NT fulfills MANY OT prophisies given many hundreds of years prior to the NT and the life of Christ.

God Bless,
Pat*

 

[Kouyate42]

Hey, I’m a Jesus Buddhist. Why would I want to trick you? If I were Jewish, I would probably be Hasidic, at least inwardly.

I have a great respect for Hasidic Jews. I love their deep love for HaShem and Torah.

Come to think of it, I love the Jewish people in general.

 

[dingodile]

Okay,but what does the authorship of any Gospel have to do with salvation? What matters is the message,not so much if it is truly written by John or whoever.

The authorship matters because if we don’t know who wrote something, we can’t know whether he was actually in a position to know the things he claims to know. In the case of the Gospels, we’d like to know whether the author heard Jesus say things and saw him do things, or heard from people who heard Jesus say things, or heard from people who heard from people…etc.

So yes, I’d say authorship matters.

 

[dingodile]

If the Gospels are NOT TRUE. then no road map exist; god is not real and there is no after life.

If they are partly true and partly inaccurate…what then?

 

[dingodile]

How do you specifically interpret John 16:13 regarding all truth given to the apostles, and John 14:16 regarding Jesus being with the apostles forever?

Jesus didn’t promise that the apostles would understand all truth at any specific point in time. So again, I think my GPS interpretation is as plausible as the infallibilist one.

 

[Kouyate42]

If the Gospels are NOT TRUE. then no road map exist; god is not real and there is no after life.

The Four Gospels are four books of a collection of almost 70 books. The New Testament makes up only a 1/3 of the total Bible. Saying what you did is excluding a great deal of the Bible.

The OT on its own provides more than adequate theology covering sin, salvation, the Moshiach and Olam Ha-Ba (the world to come)

The truth is that if you are real: God too MUST BE:thumbsup: There is secular historical evidence of Christ, and the NT fulfills MANY OT prophisies given many hundreds of years prior to the NT and the life of Christ.

God Bless,
Pat

Problem is that Judaism for centuries has laid down a strict set of criteria as to the identity of the Moshiach and what he is to achieve in terms of his reign. Jesus, whilst fufilling some of these, did not fufill others which are CRITICAL to his claim as Moshiach. One being the rebuilding of the Temple and the bringing of the world to Torah observance.

Fact is that the majority of Jews reject Jesus, and they reject him for good Torah-based reasons.

If you want, I am decently versed in Torah, and so I will happily explain the Jewish viewpoints regarding the Moshiach and about Jesus.

 

[Miriam1947]

Jesus didn’t promise that the apostles would understand all truth at any specific point in time. So again, I think my GPS interpretation is as plausible as the infallibilist one.

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:16-20[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:26-27[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Daedelus76]

Well, I just don’t believe the claims the Pope has for himself. I also don’t believe the claims of authority of any other christian church… the Bible is not infallible, neither is the Orthodox hierarchy. So Christianity has no religious authority than binds me. I’m also now a non-theist. God could exist ,but I don’t see how anybody has the authority to speak for him.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Why are you specifically asking as to my allegiances to one form of Judaism? If I were to choose one, I’d likely find myself falling into the category of Modern Orthodox Judaism.

At various times since joining the forum, you have listed your religion as “Wanting to be Orthodox,” “Classical deist,” “Baptist,” “Looking to do RCIA,” “Transitioning to be B’nei Noach,” and now “B’nei Noach.” I may have missed some along the way, but those are a few that I remember.

I know I’ve said it before, but I’m still not sure which of us is more confused, you or me. I guess you are still seeking and searching and trying to find your way. I hope you are able to do so soon.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

I’m not a Catholic because the Easter Vigil hasn’t arrived yet

Welcome home.It’s great.

 

[Alix1912]

Its not so much that I’m not Catholic, as it is I am Lutheran. But to answer your question, I’ll point to 2 things:

1. I still find the Augsburg Confession to be a confession of faith that is both catholic and evangelical, and one I can still confess without any serious question of conscience.
2. I continue to find the current claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope to be outside the teachings of the early councils and Church. This is for me the overriding factor in remaining outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome, something I would be happy to resolve.

Jon

My thought expressed above. I also define myself as a Lutheran MS, I do not define myself as “not being” something, I never was or have any intention of being.

 

[PJM]

=Daedelus76;8544924]Well, I just don’t believe the claims the Pope has for himself. I also don’t believe the claims of authority of any other christian church… the Bible is not infallible, neither is the Orthodox hierarchy. So Christianity has no religious authority than binds me. I’m also now a non-theist. God could exist ,but I don’t see how anybody has the authority to speak for him.

My friend have you ever pondered who spoke for God throughout the ages? Was it not men CHOSEN by God? Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Isaiah and the other Prophets, and then in the NT; Jesus while He was in our midst in human form; spoke for Himself, and knowing that he would dies for us appointed Peter and through Peter [even into the present], the other Apostles and subsiquent Popes.

God PROMISED:
John.14: 18 “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you”

Matthew 28:20 “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

MARK 14: 22-24 “And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

And Christ [God] gave the keys to the Kingdom of heaven to ONLY Peter and through Him; His CC.

And as for your unbelief in God: If your here so is God. If your mind, intellect, freewill and soul [all Spiritual things] don’t from God; who too is “Spirit and Truth” how do you explain everyone having them

Gove loves you friend; so do we,
Pat

 

[CopticChristian]

Scrub any other posts i’ve made in this thread, I’m not a Catholic because through study of the Old Testament and the halachah, as well as attendance at my local Orthodox synagogue and learning about Judaism, I am satisfied that the Moshiach is not Yeshua (Jesus). The Jewish religion is very specific on who the Moshiach is and how he is to be idenfied, and Jesus does not fit this profile in many ways.

Wow. Paul as you know was from the Tribe of Benjamin and said all kinds of stuff that differs with your opinion and understanding in the year 2011. He was kind of like one of the original guys…I kinda want to believe that perhaps he might have hand a better handle on OT/Torah than you…now that is just my opinion based on his teacher Gamileal being called Raban…just sayin ya know…