John 3:5 simple meaning

[nsper7]

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I see. So no one had to teach you how to read [the Scriptures]?

This passage is my authority if there is such a thing. If we can look past your devotion to the church and just look at what scripture says you still have not given me an answer to my question on what the passage simply says.

What is wrong with devotion to the Church, “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15, NAB)

I am not a Martin Luther expert, and I do not necessarily agree with all his theology, but the point is whats the scripture saying very plainly.

Either you are prideful or foolish then. If it was so very plain and simple to understand, then everyone would agree with you? Yet, that is not the case. Remember, it is not only the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that hold to Baptism being necessary to Salvation. Various Protestants groups hold to it as well.

If your only argument is going to be your church told you different then your authority is in men and their superstitions and not the Bible, is it not. Is God the author of confusion so that only a special man can determine that scripture means something opposite then what it says.

1. The Church is a not a person, it is an institution founded by Christ.
2. You are falling into Luther’s Sola Scriptura heresy. Prior to Protestantism, the idea of Scripture alone would have been laughable. For 1500 years before Luther’s life, the Church recognized that both Scripture and Tradition are authoritative. Can you find any Post-Scriptural and Pre-Protestant document that shows that Baptism was viewed as purely symbolic. Remember that, and I know this may come as a surprise to Protestants, but for 1500 years before Luther’s “Reformation”, Christians were actually living out their faith and seeking God.
3. The Church, according to Scripture, is authoritative (1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 18:17, Ephesians 3:10)
4. God has no need to be an author of confusion. Protestantism, with its myriad of sects and beliefs, does it quite well enough. For 1,000 years, the Church was unified under the Successor of St. Peter and for 1500 years, the Church has been unified in the West.

All I am asking is if its possible that these passages just mean what they say in their context.

Of course they do, but who says you are reading things in the correct context (including that of Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles)?

 

[SB81848889]

I see. So no one had to teach you how to read [the Scriptures]?

No I was taught to read, but after that we are relying on the Holy Spirit to uncover the meaning of Scripture. I am just believing what the passage says. God can teach us better then we teach each other.

What is wrong with devotion to the Church, “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15, NAB)

Nothing is wrong with devotion, but if your salvation is in religion and not Christ then that is the problem.

Either you are prideful or foolish then. If it was so very plain and simple to understand, then everyone would agree with you? Yet, that is not the case. Remember, it is not only the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that hold to Baptism being necessary to Salvation. Various Protestants groups hold to it as well.

I’m just trying to show how you can be deceived by your religion, and believe something that does not stand up to the context of the verse. Maybe I am wrong, but your church’s interpretation doesn’t even come close.

1. The Church is a not a person, it is an institution founded by Christ.
2. You are falling into Luther’s Sola Scriptura heresy. Prior to Protestantism, the idea of Scripture alone would have been laughable. For 1500 years before Luther’s life, the Church recognized that both Scripture and Tradition are authoritative. Can you find any Post-Scriptural and Pre-Protestant document that shows that Baptism was viewed as purely symbolic. Remember that, and I know this may come as a surprise to Protestants, but for 1500 years before Luther’s “Reformation”, Christians were actually living out their faith and seeking God.
3. The Church, according to Scripture, is authoritative (1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 18:17, Ephesians 3:10)
4. God has no need to be an author of confusion. Protestantism, with its myriad of sects and beliefs, does it quite well enough. For 1,000 years, the Church was unified under the Successor of St. Peter and for 1500 years, the Church has been unified in the West.

1. No the church is a Body of believers, not an institution aka religion.
2. That’s because your church was not giving out the scriptures to the people, they were giving out their religion. Martin Luther was a great catholic theologian and he started to give out the word of God to a dark age people who needed it. It wasn’t laughable it was revival. If the bible says its symbolic then I don’t need any extra-biblical sources.
3. I agree to a point, there is nothing wrong with going to church, its religion that deceives us. Maybe you have been deceived by your church and God probably wont judge you for it, but God will heavily judge his church like he did to the seven church’s in revelation. If your salvation is not in Christ alone then you will be judged.
4. Yes you were unified for 1000 years in your religion.

Of course they do, but who says you are reading things in the correct context (including that of Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles)?

The context is Jesus and nicodemous are talking about man crawling back into the mothers womb to be born again. I don’t need sacred tradition and church teachings to convince me, God made it pretty clear just by writing it down, and I read it.

 

[RNRobert]

I am PROUD to be unlearned. 1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Not always a good thing: St Peter tells us in 3:15 of his second epistle that it is the unlearned (as well as the unstable) who distort the Scripture to their destruction. I believe Scripture also has something to say about pride going before a fall…

 

[Zenas]

Well I disagree with him, and he will have to provide a much better explanation than that one to convince me. Just look at the context and it really is pretty simple, but hey If someone can convince me otherwise with scripture then I will recant.

I am PROUD to be unlearned. 1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

You need to remember that the Bible wasn’t written in English, it was written in Greek, and without learned persons to translate it for us we would not have the Bible.

As for your interpretation of this verse, you can’t be convinced otherwise unless you are willing to be. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. But it seems strange that there was complete unanimity concerning this verse for the first 1,600 years of its existence. All agreed that it referred to baptism. Even the early reformers. So why do you think your understanding is superior to men like Augustine, Luther, Knox, Calvin and Wesley? You do know who these men are don’t you?

 

[erikd]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is it possible that Catholics have been taught by their church that this verse implies baptism as a requirement to get into heaven to instill a works salvation. when the more realistic and simple interpretation is that Jesus was simply talking with nicodemus is a way that he could understand. They were talking about being born.

Nicodemus was astonished at Jesus words about being born again, and asked him how could a man craw back into his mothers womb.

Jesus is talking about a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth (spirit).

To take the interpretation that water means baptism does not even enter into the context of their discussion. It seem the Catholic church is teaching this verse means more than what Jesus said. Something that you would never assume without another telling you thats what it meant.

I was just wondering what a Catholic says about this.

5: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:5

Your interpretation of the water being a natural birth does not concur with other passages in Scripture:

25: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26: A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.
Ezekiel 36: 25-27

The Prophet is speaking the Words of God referring to the sanctification of Israel, after having profaned His Name. Sounds very Baptismal. This, by the way, leads straight to the New Testament writings of St. Paul:

15: They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
Romans 2:15

The laws are written in our hearts, thanks to the regenerative power of water and Spirit.

5: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3: 5

This is also not speaking of a physical rebirth, but rather a washing of the foolish, disobedient, and the deceived (3:3).

26: that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Ephesians 5:26

This passages speaks of the sanctification, not physical birth, of the Church.

Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, “Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith.” But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added w the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.
Tertullian “On Baptism” 160-240 AD

The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.
Catholic Encyclopedia “Baptism”

“Baptism is the external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribed form of words.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III:66:1

 

[nsper7]

1. No the church is a Body of believers, not an institution aka religion.
2. That’s because your church was not giving out the scriptures to the people, they were giving out their religion. Martin Luther was a great catholic theologian and he started to give out the word of God to a dark age people who needed it. It wasn’t laughable it was revival. If the bible says its symbolic then I don’t need any extra-biblical sources.
3. I agree to a point, there is nothing wrong with going to church, its religion that deceives us. Maybe you have been deceived by your church and God probably wont judge you for it, but God will heavily judge his church like he did to the seven church’s in revelation. If your salvation is not in Christ alone then you will be judged.
4. Yes you were unified for 1000 years in your religion.

You are now just spewing out Evangelical Protestant propaganda. As I just said, Martin Luther held a ‘Catholic’ view on Baptism. The Catholic Church is the historical Church founded by Christ and outside of her there is no Salvation. The Church is the Body of Christ, founded by Him and guided by Him. In terms of Scripture, that ‘dark age’ does not fly. Most people were illiterate and, before the printing press, books of any kind were highly expensive. The only time the Church forbid Bibles was if they contained heretical information (i.e. containing Gnostic Gospels). All Protestantism has given the world is division, you cannot even agree with your ‘founder’ and I am sure I could find dozens of Protestants that would disagree with your position. It all comes down to personal opinion. You can claim the Holy Spirit led you to your interpretation, but so does every other Protestant. So, thus, you are saying God sows discord. That is the greatest failure to any Protestant argument. So, where was the Church before Martin Luther? And don’t give me that junk about there being some ‘hidden true Church’ for that fails on multiple levels. 1) There is no historical record of it. When the Catholic Church charged a group with heresy, it was not done secretively. Evidence was published and records kept. 2) Jesus said not to keep our faith hidden from others. Thus, you’d be admitting that for 1500 years, the ‘hidden True Church’ was committing utter disobedience. Face it, you can argue until you’re blue in the face, but you have neither history nor logic on your side. History, since we can trace Catholic teaching back to the Apostles. Logic, because as with any argument with Protestants, I can probably find some Protestant who disagrees with your interpretation.

The context is Jesus and nicodemous are talking about man crawling back into the mothers womb to be born again. I don’t need sacred tradition and church teachings to convince me, God made it pretty clear just by writing it down, and I read it.

Again, if it is so simple, then why do even many ‘Sola Scriptura’ Protestants disagree with you? Either you are very prideful or very foolish or both. BTW- where does Scripture confirm the idea of Sola Scriptura?

 

[erikd]

Nothing is wrong with devotion, but if your salvation is in religion and not Christ then that is the problem.

How about our salvation in the religion that Christ made for us to follow?

*“We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration [relegendo], that religion has received its name.”*Lactantius: “Divine Institutes”, IV, xxviii

I’m just trying to show how you can be deceived by your religion, and believe something that does not stand up to the context of the verse. Maybe I am wrong, but your church’s interpretation doesn’t even come close.

Can you explain, then, how it is that between 40,000 and 50,000 different religious denominations have sprung up, all believing the same Bible, all claiming to have the ability to understand that same Bible from that same Holy Spirit? Remember that the Church (the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) has always believed as “One” Church meaning that we are of “One” faith, of “One” Baptism, of “One” Lord. The Only Christian “Religion” that has survived since Christ walked the earth. Does not the consistency of this Church show you something? Remember the passage and tell me how your Church stacks up:

*38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought;
39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.*Acts 5:38-39

1. No the church is a Body of believers, not an institution aka religion.

Please refer to the definition listed above (religati).

1. That’s because your church was not giving out the scriptures to the people, they were giving out their religion. Martin Luther was a great catholic theologian and he started to give out the word of God to a dark age people who needed it. It wasn’t laughable it was revival. If the bible says its symbolic then I don’t need any extra-biblical sources.

You may have a hard time proving this point. Remember the structure of the Mass. Every day a minimum of two Scriptural readings plus several Psalms (none of these readings or Psalms repeating day to day but progressively moving through the Bible through a three year cycle). On Sundays there are 3 Scriptural readings and the Psalms. While the structure of the Mass took some time to become developed into its existence as we see it today, the Church has always read Scripture in Church. That is the reason the Canon of Scripture, agreed upon in 382 AD at the Council of Rome, was put together in the first place. The Canon was a list of Books that were to be read in Church. This was the Church’s mandatory teaching of what is to be read in Church, and it’s lasted for over 1600 years officially, and almost 2000 years unofficially (remember that for over 300 years the Church was persecuted and people were dying in mass numbers making it nearly impossible to uniformly develop the structure of the Mass and of the readings during the Mass.) I’m not sure where your argument is coming from.

1. I agree to a point, there is nothing wrong with going to church, its religion that deceives us. Maybe you have been deceived by your church and God probably wont judge you for it, but God will heavily judge his church like he did to the seven church’s in revelation. If your salvation is not in Christ alone then you will be judged.

If you believe that Catholics believe their salvation to be in anyone other than Jesus you don’t know Catholicism (no offense, I’m just pointing out factual truth)

Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp

 

[Luke65]

I don’t need sacred tradition and church teachings to convince me, God made it pretty clear just by writing it down, and I read it.

I’m not quite sure why you keep saying that. Have you read this:

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” (2 Corinthians 4:3)

And this:

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

If you’re not receiving the Holy Eucharist then you’re perishing, and that’s why the Gospel is veiled to you. And because the Gospel is veiled to you, you are perishing. Disobedience is a vicious cycle, that you can only break free from by repentance, and then obedience. So do what Jesus told you to do - listen to the Church (Matt. 18:17).

 

[PJM]

=SB81848889-John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is it possible that Catholics have been taught by their church that this verse implies baptism as a requirement to get into heaven to instill a works salvation. when the more realistic and simple interpretation is that Jesus was simply talking with nicodemus is a way that he could understand. They were talking about being born.

Nicodemus was astonished at Jesus words about being born again, and asked him how could a man craw back into his mothers womb.

Jesus is talking about a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth (spirit).

To take the interpretation that water means baptism does not even enter into the context of their discussion. It seem the Catholic church is teaching this verse means more than what Jesus said. Something that you would never assume without another telling you thats what it meant.

I was just wondering what a Catholic says about this.

Friend, please allow me to help clarify for you.

2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture [meaning teaching] is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

2 Cor. 4: 2 “We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing."

1 Peter 4: 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”

*** 2nd. Tim. 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God ***and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Jn.20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31* but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name

1 Thess.1: 5 “for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.”

Brother Nicodemus was astonished at Jesus words because he understood them only from a secular human perspective.

Eph. 4:4 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift”

Mt. 3:13"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.”*** Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened * and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, * with whom I am well pleased.”***

Baptism is soooo important that our Perfect Christ was baptised. He didn’t need it, we do!

Mk. 16:16 16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Gal. 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

John 3:5 [RSV Catholic Bible] *** Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ***

Hope this clarifies?

 

[BibleAnswer]

haha, OP. You will never get a legit answer from anybody here. Everybody falls back on the 2000 years of tradition and the church teachings. I have spent many a day and night thoughfully trying to prove scripture to scripture, as is my responsibility once i started to understand the spiritual meaning of the Word.

Is 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.

Matt 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,
Matt 13:35 that is might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable.

Mark 5:33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it.
Mark 5:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

You will always be rebuked with, what is your authority, if you tell them, the bible, they wil say, what bible do you use, thereby diverting the true teaching you present with some bs that only takes away from the meaning of the Word, and what makes you so special to be able to intrepret the bible, if you give them scripture like the following, you will still get some crazy rebuke about how the church has the authority and not you, so they will never listen, even though the following clearly says the opposite:

Psalm 119:1-176; Instruction on doctrine, scripture and precepts.

Ps 119:99-104 I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts. I have restrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Your word. I have not departed from Your judgments, for You Yourself have taught me. How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.

Acts 17:11 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.

1 Ptr 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.

**1Tim 4:6-7 ** If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. But reject profane and old wives fables, and exercise yourself rather to godlines

**2Tim 3:14-17 ** But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2Tim 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

2Tim 4:5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

The fact is, as is clearly spelled out in Revelations, that there was already a great falling away, which spiritually is metaphore for the holy spirit. there will be a great falling away in Gods church. As God has installed Satan to rule in congregations. It says that clear as day, it is supported by the whole bible through careful study, and what this means is that the church is dead. The earthly external representation of the kingdom of God is dead, why, because Satan is installed onto the high seat in the LORDs temple. The Holy spirit has fallen away from the church here on earth, and we are commanded to flee our church and find the truth in the bible, which is where His word is.

what this means for people in a church, any church, With the fact of the great falling away, meaing the holy spirit has left the local external congregation representing the church of God, and that God has installed Satan to rule in the congregation, means that those people will never never never never recieve the Holy spirit AS LONG as they remain in church. If you dont recieve the holy spirit, you will never recognise truth.

It is unfortunate, but that is the case for approximately 2 billion people that are in churches all over the world. It is impossible for them to recognize this fact as long as they continue to be taught with the taint of church teachings, which of course would never ever ever teach that church is dead, as that would ruin them. And so what do you think will happen, none of these people serve God. it is sad but true, if they served God, they would not rebuke you so readily and they would seek the answer to this new teaching, hoping to God to find the truth so they can bette serve God. All these people are content though, they will never find grace or thruth. Because nothing you do will save you, already that principal is out the window with a baptism.

And so we are commanded to flee the church, and head for the mountains, which is spiritual language for the TRUE kingdom of God, and where do we find the LORD, in His word, and where is His word, in the bible.

and what is the point i make, that only the true believers, will apart of the true church, which is a spiritual church made up of only true believers. I have explained the parable of the wheat and tares, and how they are mixed together, and how a tare could not possibly ever ever ever receive the holy spirit, because that is just the way it is, and that you run the risk of being taught by a tare, and that the only way to find spiritual truth is to study the bible for yourself.

If a church has tares it is corrupt. a corrupt church is not an eternal church, a corrupt church can be destroyed just like the seven in revelation. And that only the wheat are apart of Gods spiritual everlasting church.

And especially, that when speaking of baptism, the LORD is speaking of a baptism of the HOLY Spirit and washing away of spiritual sin, just like the circumcision was the cutting away of spiritual sin, to make one clean. Now they think sprinkling water on you can wash sin away somehow, yet they misinterpret the fact that it is not YOU cleaning your soul with water, it is nothing that YOU do, no WORK you do will wash that sin away, and baptising somebody is a Work. No they dont understand that it is baptism by holy spirit.

 

[erikd]

haha, OP. You will never get a legit answer from anybody here. Everybody falls back on the 2000 years of tradition and the church teachings. I have spent many a day and night thoughfully trying to prove scripture to scripture, as is my responsibility once i started to understand the spiritual meaning of the Word.

You will always be rebuked with, what is your authority, if you tell them, the bible, they wil say, what bible do you use, thereby diverting the true teaching you present with some bs that only takes away from the meaning of the Word, and what makes you so special to be able to intrepret the bible.

Bible Answer:

It’s nice to hear from you again. Last time I asked you the question you mentioned above, which Bible do you use, I did not see a response. As a matter of fact, let me ask the question again, to save you the trouble of going through all those other unanswered threads:

1: Does your Bible have 66 Books or 73 Books?
2: Since I know you believe your Bible to be complete (as you’ve mentioned in the past) can you tell me if your Bible is 100% complete or 90% complete? (66 is 90% of 73)
3: If you choose to tell me that your Bible is 100% complete, although it has 66 Books, can you explain your mathematical logic?

Bible Answer, I hope you can dialogue with me because asking questions that go continuously unanswered is kind of like banging my head into a wall.:banghead:

 

[erikd]

The fact is, as is clearly spelled out in Revelations, that there was already a great falling away, which spiritually is metaphore for the holy spirit. there will be a great falling away in Gods church. As God has installed Satan to rule in congregations. It says that clear as day, it is supported by the whole bible through careful study, and what this means is that the church is dead. The earthly external representation of the kingdom of God is dead, why, because Satan is installed onto the high seat in the LORDs temple. The Holy spirit has fallen away from the church here on earth, and we are commanded to flee our church and find the truth in the bible, which is where His word is.

Bible Answer:

Does that mean that you will begin to edit the Bible next? I think there are verses that need to be eliminated, based on the paragraph above. Maybe we’ll start with this one:

*15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. *1 Timothy 3:15

I guess editing the Bible is nothing new for Protestants, Martin Luther was famous for that.:sad_yes:

 

[nsper7]

BibleAnswer, translations of the Bible are very important, as is whether your Bible as all 73 books (as established by the Christian Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage in the 4th and 5th Century) or 66 books as established by Martin Luther based on the Pharisaic Canon (you know, those guys that rejected Jesus and conspired with the Roman authorities to have Him crucified)…well, that is your choice.

But, BibleAnswer, the question I and others will continue to ask Protestants is: WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE? You and others claim the Holy Spirit, but then you are, in effect, saying the Holy Spirit (God) is divisive and promotes disunity among His followers. Either that or we have a lot of liars claiming to be Christians…or a lot of idiots or both. After all, whether your interpretation of Scripture, or Martin Luther’s or John Calvin’s or John Wesley’s or Mennos Simons or Barton Stone’s/Alexander Campbell’s or John Cranmer’s or…and the list goes on…become a giant dice game, although you’d need a thousand-dice to get the odds properly.

If everyone has equal authority to interpret Scripture under your system, then what about Catholic apologists/theologians? They interpret Scripture. Face it, Protestantism is based on foolishness, pride and divisiveness. The main reason Luther’s rebellion succeeded was because the German Princes were power-hungry and did not like having to deal with the Pope.

About the only thing all Protestant’s can agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong! If it weren’t for us, you’d be fighting more than you already are. Put a Baptist, a Presbyterian and a Luther together…they sure as Hell can’t agree on soteriology (Calvinism vs. Arminian) or liturgy, but they can all agree that the Catholic Church is wrong. If Protestants did not have the Catholic Church to fight again, they’d have gone extinct from boredom.

I am sick and tired of Protestantism. They unmitigated gall to STEAL OUR SCRIPTURES (maybe you should read a little bit of history) and then come up with the wackiest and most divisive interpretations of them. It’s funny how 1500 years in the West, the Church was unified on doctrine, then Luther rebels and suddenly all Hell breaks loose (pun definitely intended). The fact that Protestantism has sown divisiveness since its very inception should be proof that it is not of God.

 

[Omyo12]

A little background: (you can skip this)
I was born Catholic but attended a private Evangelical Protestant elementary school (switched to a public school in 3rd grade ). However, I eventually stop considering myself a Catholic during Middle School and stop considering myself a Christian in High School . But then, two years ago, I started studying Christianity again when talking to some Jehovah’s Witnesses. I studied the works of John MacArthur and E.W. Bullinger. All very fascinating indeed. I considered myself nondenominational but also grew more and more anti-Catholic (mostly due to misconceptions I had).

(ok, here’s my point)
One of the important reasons that drew me back to Catholicism from Protestantism was the authority issue.

(I debated myself for a bit whether to come back to the Catholic Church or convert to the Orthodox Church. Took a bit but I’ve made my choice.)

Here’s an example:

I have a friend who is a Pentecostal.
I was studying the Trinity at the time (since the Jehovah’s Witnesses presented evidence against it), so I asked him for any Trinitarian biblical basis and how he came to these interpretations. He gave me some verses but also told me a very important part of interpreting. He said his authority is the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. He understood God’s triune Nature due to the Holy Spirit. He’s very devotional and says praying helps him understand.

I recently had weekly talks with a “nondenominational” Oneness Pentecostal (however he doesn’t call himself so) who was trying to convert me.
Being Oneness, he believes God is only one person and that Jesus is the one God incarnate. He describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as only ways God revealed Himself to us; made possible through his omnipresence. He told me the same thing my Trinitarian Pentecostal friend said. He said his authority is the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. He understood God’s Nature due to the Holy Spirit. He’s even more devotional than my friend!

I take the nature of God and of Christ to be quite a huge issue. Both were telling me their authority is the Holy Spirit. So is the Holy Spirit guiding both?
However,

1 Corinthians 14:33 (NASB)
“for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

So the Holy Spirit cannot be guiding both. So who is He guiding? Well I can’t simply choose one at random. It all depends on how I myself interpret the verses given. This is why, if I don’t agree with any existing denomination, I can simply start my own or be a “nondenominational.”

Now both agree that Baptism is crucial for salvation; both of course being advocates of Sola Scriptura. SB81848889 and BibleAnswer each have their own views and see Baptism as symbolic or only of the Spirit and not of water.

So again, who’s in the right? The Oneness Pentecostal presented many Old Testament allusions to a water baptism along with many New Testament quotes. Yet BibleAnswer presented the “parable” argument. So who has the correct interpretation?

I’ve heard many Protestants say that the disunity between the denominations are small and they all still follow Christ which is the important part. The problem is that denominations sometimes disagree not only on little things, but on what’s needed for salvation and on the very nature of God!

Also, in regards to why the Oneness Pentecostal refused to identify himself as such is because he’s a “Bible believing Christian” who’s theology is all taken from only Scripture.

He told me:

“I think the most dangerous thing against Christianity right now is religion. If we all just stopped following our denominations and started following the Bible alone things would be much better.”

of course when he said “the Bible alone” I’m sure he meant his interpretation of the Bible. I’m sure SB81848889 would agree with the quote but not the interpretation.

 

[erikd]

A little background: (you can skip this)
I was born Catholic but attended a private Evangelical Protestant elementary school (switched to a public school in 3rd grade ). However, I eventually stop considering myself a Catholic during Middle School and stop considering myself a Christian in High School . But then, two years ago, I started studying Christianity again when talking to some Jehovah’s Witnesses. I studied the works of John MacArthur and E.W. Bullinger. All very fascinating indeed. I considered myself nondenominational but also grew more and more anti-Catholic (mostly due to misconceptions I had).

(ok, here’s my point)
One of the important reasons that drew me back to Catholicism from Protestantism was the authority issue.

(I debated myself for a bit whether to come back to the Catholic Church or convert to the Orthodox Church. Took a bit but I’ve made my choice.)

Here’s an example:

I have a friend who is a Pentecostal.
I was studying the Trinity at the time (since the Jehovah’s Witnesses presented evidence against it), so I asked him for any Trinitarian biblical basis and how he came to these interpretations. He gave me some verses but also told me a very important part of interpreting. He said his authority is the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. He understood God’s triune Nature due to the Holy Spirit. He’s very devotional and says praying helps him understand.

I recently had weekly talks with a “nondenominational” Oneness Pentecostal (however he doesn’t call himself so) who was trying to convert me.
Being Oneness, he believes God is only one person and that Jesus is the one God incarnate. He describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as only ways God revealed Himself to us; made possible through his omnipresence. He told me the same thing my Trinitarian Pentecostal friend said. He said his authority is the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. He understood God’s Nature due to the Holy Spirit. He’s even more devotional than my friend!

I take the nature of God and of Christ to be quite a huge issue. Both were telling me their authority is the Holy Spirit. So is the Holy Spirit guiding both?
However,

So the Holy Spirit cannot be guiding both. So who is He guiding? Well I can’t simply choose one at random. It all depends on how I myself interpret the verses given. This is why, if I don’t agree with any existing denomination, I can simply start my own or be a “nondenominational.”

Now both agree that Baptism is crucial for salvation; both of course being advocates of Sola Scriptura. SB81848889 and BibleAnswer each have their own views and see Baptism as symbolic or only of the Spirit and not of water.

So again, who’s in the right? The Oneness Pentecostal presented many Old Testament allusions to a water baptism along with many New Testament quotes. Yet BibleAnswer presented the “parable” argument. So who has the correct interpretation?

I’ve heard many Protestants say that the disunity between the denominations are small and they all still follow Christ which is the important part. The problem is that denominations sometimes disagree not only on little things, but on what’s needed for salvation and on the very nature of God!

Also, in regards to why the Oneness Pentecostal refused to identify himself as such is because he’s a “Bible believing Christian” who’s theology is all taken from only Scripture.

He told me:

of course when he said “the Bible alone” I’m sure he meant his interpretation of the Bible. I’m sure SB81848889 would agree with the quote but not the interpretation.

Attn: SB81848889 and BibleAnswer:

I have yet to see a non-Catholic answer the point being made above. How can you have two “Sola Scriptura” believers, both led by the Holy Spirit, who differ on some of the most basic fundamentals of salvation? Does that not show error? Is it possible that your views of the Catholic Church are based on misconceptions?

Nice job Omyo12 and welcome Home.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The phrase “born of water” is unique to John 3:5. The idea that it refers to natural birth seems doubtful since natural birth seems to be called “born of the flesh” in the next verse, John 3:6. Since John clearly uses “water” as a metaphor for “the Spirit” elsewhere (John 7:38-39), I think it highly unlikely that he would also use it here to mean “the flesh.”

The idea that “born of water” means a natural birth, because the amniotic fluid associated with natural birth is a water-like fluid, seems unlikely because the twenty or so occurrences of the word “water” in John almost always mean fresh water. In a few cases (John 4:10, 4:14, 7:38) it is used as a metaphor for “the Spirit” but, in John 3:5, it is very unlikely that “water” is to be taken metaphorically to mean “the Spirit,” since that would create the redundancy, “born of the Spirit and the Spirit.” Only once, at Jesus’ death in John 19:34, is “water” mentioned where it seems to mean “a water-like fluid produced within the human body.” So, context overwhelmingly favors “born of water” to mean “born of fresh water.”

In John 3:3, Jesus says that one must be “born anew.” In the next verse, Nicodemus asks, How can a man be born when he is old? In John 3:5, Jesus explains ‘born anew’ by the words, “born of water and the Spirit.” “Born of water” is not a reference to natural birth but to this new birth that involves both water and the Spirit together. As another poster has shown, this understanding of “born of water and the Spirit” is supported by the original Greek, which indicates a single birth with the two agents of water and the Spirit, rather than two distinct births, each with its own agent, one birth involving water and another disconnected birth involving the Spirit.

Since the OP seems quite willing to accept, and rightly so, that one is ‘born of the Spirit’ when one is ‘baptized with the Spirit,’ the OP should have no problem also accepting that one is ‘born of water’ when one is ‘baptized with water.’ Thus, in John 3:5, Jesus is explaining that one is ‘born anew’ by being baptized with water and the Spirit at the same time.

This dual nature (water and the Spirit) of Christian baptism makes sense of St. Paul’s statement that “there is … one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4-5) without which, because there is mention at times of Christian baptism with water and at other times of Christian baptism with the Spirit, one might erroneously conclude that there are two Christian baptisms.

The Catholic understanding of Christian baptism, that the moment a person is baptized with water "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he also receives the baptism of the Spirit and is born anew and eligible to enter the kingdom of God, is thus quite agreeable with John 3:5 and the rest of the New Testament.

 

[BibleAnswer]

Bible Answer:

It’s nice to hear from you again. Last time I asked you the question you mentioned above, which Bible do you use, I did not see a response. As a matter of fact, let me ask the question again, to save you the trouble of going through all those other unanswered threads:

1: Does your Bible have 66 Books or 73 Books?
2: Since I know you believe your Bible to be complete (as you’ve mentioned in the past) can you tell me if your Bible is 100% complete or 90% complete? (66 is 90% of 73)
3: If you choose to tell me that your Bible is 100% complete, although it has 66 Books, can you explain your mathematical logic?

Bible Answer, I hope you can dialogue with me because asking questions that go continuously unanswered is kind of like banging my head into a wall.:banghead:

ya its been awhile. I really like to come on here and talk about this stuff, i need to do a better job expressing myself somtimes. For the sake of being brothers in Christ, please allow me to illucidate my feelings for you all. I think every one of you that engages on here is legitly seeking the truth, and of course we are all going to see the truth differently, and I just wanted to make clear that i really do not mean to bash, or judge, or anything really except try to preach the word spoken by God.

please allow my to answer your question like this:

Question: "I agree that the bible is the ultimate authority, but the original church decided what books should go into the Bible, because the church existed before the Bible.

Answer: "No!! the is what the church might claim. there is no church that goes back to the time of Moses. God began to write the Bible in the days of Moses, 3500 years ago. No denomination that exists today, except the Jewish religion, had anything to do with the books of the Old Testament, which is more than half the Bible. Thus, a church might claim that they decided what books were to go into the Bible, and they decided that Peter was the first pope, and they decided that the church began in Rome, and they claim or decided a whole lot of things, but that does not make the things true.

We have to let the Bible tell us. God wrote the Bible. the Bible is His Word; He decided what books were to go into the Bible. How He did that is IMMATERIAL(because He is God, and we cannot fathom Him) He obviously used men at some point, but the mechanics of it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. (Your debating will never change Gods will) God was in charge.

We read in II Peter 1:21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Everything in the Bible was written by the pen of man, but it all came from God. Other things were written, but they are not part of God’s word to us. Jesus spoke many times but only a tiny percentage of what He said is in the Bible. Now if anyone writes or says something and declares it is from God, then he is in violation of the Word of God as is the case written in Rev 22:18-19. God will not violate His own rules.

The Bible did not come into existence by osmosis or by someone finding some plates somewhere and saying that the Bible was already written. The Bible was written by man. From Gen 1 to Rev 22, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. the Bible came from God.

To finish my argument, No one, no person has plumbed the depths of the Word of God. We can search it and study it, and there is always more to learn from His Word. Why in the world would you want to go outside of the Bible and take a chance that you will get something from Satan who comes as an angel of light?

Summary: My bible has 66 books. My bible is the King James bible, as it is the most accurate translation of the original hebrew and Greek. I cant comment further. as i already said, all of this is in Gods hands. it is His Word, He will find a way to make it work. Nothing you or I do will ever ever ever upset the balance of His plan. Now if you want to argue the remaining 7 books, i just really cant. On that case i really have absulutely no authority, except for what i already believe, they are not inspired. How do i know this,

the only credible answer i can give you, is that i am just a very serious bible student. And when you become one, through no fault of your own, or your parents, or your churches, you see an amazing thing happen. This bible is more than the sum of its parts. It connects in amazing ways that you could not possibly fathom unless you seriously study with a purpose. I have. I started by wanting to undersant the calander. Now i do. I have a calander. It is on my desktop and is my reference to so much knowledge that has opened. up. Resulting in seeing how faithfully aspects connect. and when trying to understand previous misconception, you will see how your ideals were never in accordance with THE REST of the bible. A VERSE here and verse there will not cut it. The whole picture is something else.

And yes, i truely calculated the calender straight from the Bible. This was my initial study method and my understanding has grown, surpassed that of my church fathers and what they taught me.

I can dare to say that, yet i promise you friends, in all humility, it is true. thats why it is hard to debate beacuse i can’t unsee what i saw, and i need to be humble and meek and arguing about the truth is not serving our LORD.

It is up to you, to really seek the answer, not just accept what was spoon fed to you by the church and believe it because it seems holy. And you have all these technicalities, and doctrine to explain doctrine and moral law and politics and… its just too much. I did my part, I shared the truth, and i will answer any question and i will freely give my calandar, End

 

[nsper7]

BibleAnswer, you make some interesting point, but none of them which you can prove. You are asking us to accept your opinion (which is not Scripture of course).

"No!! the is what the church might claim. there is no church that goes back to the time of Moses. God began to write the Bible in the days of Moses, 3500 years ago. No denomination that exists today, except the Jewish religion, had anything to do with the books of the Old Testament, which is more than half the Bible. Thus, a church might claim that they decided what books were to go into the Bible, and they decided that Peter was the first pope, and they decided that the church began in Rome, and they claim or decided a whole lot of things, but that does not make the things true.

We have to let the Bible tell us. God wrote the Bible. the Bible is His Word; He decided what books were to go into the Bible. How He did that is IMMATERIAL(because He is God, and we cannot fathom Him) He obviously used men at some point, but the mechanics of it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. (Your debating will never change Gods will) God was in charge.

We read in II Peter 1:21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Everything in the Bible was written by the pen of man, but it all came from God. Other things were written, but they are not part of God’s word to us. Jesus spoke many times but only a tiny percentage of what He said is in the Bible. Now if anyone writes or says something and declares it is from God, then he is in violation of the Word of God as is the case written in Rev 22:18-19. God will not violate His own rules.

The Bible did not come into existence by osmosis or by someone finding some plates somewhere and saying that the Bible was already written. The Bible was written by man. From Gen 1 to Rev 22, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. the Bible came from God.

You are correct about the Old Testament being begun in the Pre-Christian Era, although even at the time of Christ, there were arguments over the canon. In the latter 1st Century AD, as a response to the growth of Christianity and concerns that portions of the Old Testament might point to Christ, the Pharisaic Jews (those who had rejected Christ) decided on the canon which excluded the the so-called Apocryphal Books which have always been in Catholic Bibles, but which Martin Luther rejected, partially based on the authority of the Pharisaic. In other words, he went with the group (the Pharisees) responsible for ordering the crucifixion of Our Lord over the Church’s historical position. That should tell you something right there.

I do not know your knowledge of Scripture, but you seem woefully ignorant of history. How the Bible was canonized is extremely important to this argument. Throughout Early Church history, there were numerous arguments about which books make up the New Testament and it was not finally resolved until the Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries AD. This is history, not opinion. You can try to argue against it all you want, but you only make yourself look more foolish in doing so. HAVE YOU READ THE HISTORY OF THIS ERA?

AGAIN, I ASK YOU, WHERE IN SCRIPTURE IS ‘SOLA SCRIPTURA’ MENTIONED? You will find it an invention of Martin Luther’s. Again, THIS IS HISTORY!

You are misusing the Revelation 22:18-19 quote. Remember that Revelation was written by St. John on the island of Patmos in the latter part of the 1st Century AD. Those words are only referring to the Book of Revelation since the canon of the New Testament had no even been decided yet and some books of the NT may not have even written yet. To claim that those words of Revelation apply to all of the Scriptures is idiocy and there is no logic to it and, furthermore, you cannot prove it from the actual works themselves, only your personal and flawed opinion. And even if by some ridiculousness you’re correct, it does not affect the status of Sacred Tradition since it is viewed as separate from Scripture. Scripture and Tradition, although connected, are not add-ons to one another. Even under your own interpretation, you have to acknowledge truth comes from other sources, otherwise you better not be seeing them doctors with their screwball medical ideas nor can you attend any classes on anything nor can you read anything else other than Scripture (not eve Protestant theologians).

The Church, NOT SCRIPTURE, is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Scripture never states that it is the only authority.

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp (I recommend you read this article)

 

[nsper7]

Summary: My bible has 66 books. My bible is the King James bible, as it is the most accurate translation of the original hebrew and Greek. I cant comment further. as i already said, all of this is in Gods hands. it is His Word, He will find a way to make it work. Nothing you or I do will ever ever ever upset the balance of His plan. Now if you want to argue the remaining 7 books, i just really cant. On that case i really have absulutely no authority, except for what i already believe, they are not inspired. How do i know this,

the only credible answer i can give you, is that i am just a very serious bible student. And when you become one, through no fault of your own, or your parents, or your churches, you see an amazing thing happen. This bible is more than the sum of its parts. It connects in amazing ways that you could not possibly fathom unless you seriously study with a purpose. I have. I started by wanting to undersant the calander. Now i do. I have a calander. It is on my desktop and is my reference to so much knowledge that has opened. up. Resulting in seeing how faithfully aspects connect. and when trying to understand previous misconception, you will see how your ideals were never in accordance with THE REST of the bible. A VERSE here and verse there will not cut it. The whole picture is something else.

And yes, i truely calculated the calender straight from the Bible. This was my initial study method and my understanding has grown, surpassed that of my church fathers and what they taught me.

How do you know the King James Version is the best translation? Are we now an expert on Greek and Hebrew as well? Are you willing to join the Church of England/Anglican Communion–whom King James I of England had the Scriptures translated for/by as a response to Catholic translations in his territory. You admit you have no authority, but you still claim you believe the “Apocrypha” is uninspired and then go on to claim how great a Bible scholar you are. Prove it. Pride and stupidity seem to go hand-in-hand for some people.

Why should I take your word over that of 2000 years of Church history? You just admitted you have no authority and for once I am in wholehearted agreement with you.

 

[erikd]

please allow my to answer your question like this:

Question: "I agree that the bible is the ultimate authority, but the original church decided what books should go into the Bible, because the church existed before the Bible.

Answer: "No!! the is what the church might claim. there is no church that goes back to the time of Moses.

I’m not sure I understand. There are, as you know, two covenants. The old covenant and the new covenant. The new replaced the old. The Church did exist during the old covenant, it is explained throughout the Pentateuch. In the new covenant, the Church changed as Christ became our Paschal Sacrifice. People became Christians and Judaism and Christianity became two separate and distinct forms of belief. That being said, there was a Church started within the first century, the Christian Church. St. Paul traveled to many places to preach the Word, as is explained by his own writings. Those writings were not made public until after the death of St. Paul, which means there was a time when St. Paul preached that which has not yet been published. The Bible, at that time, only included the Old Testament, and it was known as the Septuagint. There is an example of the Church existing before the Bible.

We have to let the Bible tell us. God wrote the Bible. the Bible is His Word; He decided what books were to go into the Bible. How He did that is IMMATERIAL(because He is God, and we cannot fathom Him) He obviously used men at some point, but the mechanics of it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. (Your debating will never change Gods will) God was in charge.

But by that logic you are ignoring the teaching of the Apostles, teaching that were not necessarily written down, but teachings that were communicated to the faithful using oral tradition, not the written Word. These were still the teachings of Christ and, again just using your logic, you are ignoring those teachings of Christ.

Everything in the Bible was written by the pen of man, but it all came from God. Other things were written, but they are not part of God’s word to us. Jesus spoke many times but only a tiny percentage of what He said is in the Bible. Now if anyone writes or says something and declares it is from God, then he is in violation of the Word of God as is the case written in Rev 22:18-19. God will not violate His own rules.

You’re right, as St. John himself tells us:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
St. John 21:25

Therefore we rely on the teachings of the Apostles, teachings that have been passed down for almost 2000 years through an unbroken chain of Bishops and clergy.

To finish my argument, No one, no person has plumbed the depths of the Word of God. We can search it and study it, and there is always more to learn from His Word. Why in the world would you want to go outside of the Bible and take a chance that you will get something from Satan who comes as an angel of light?

Because the teachings of the Apostles are not satanic!!! They are of God and their teachings are in unison with the Holy Writ.

Summary: My bible has 66 books. My bible is the King James bible, as it is the most accurate translation of the original hebrew and Greek. I cant comment further. as i already said, all of this is in Gods hands. it is His Word, He will find a way to make it work. Nothing you or I do will ever ever ever upset the balance of His plan. Now if you want to argue the remaining 7 books, i just really cant. On that case i really have absulutely no authority, except for what i already believe, they are not inspired. How do i know this,

the only credible answer i can give you, is that i am just a very serious bible student. And when you become one, through no fault of your own, or your parents, or your churches, you see an amazing thing happen. This bible is more than the sum of its parts. It connects in amazing ways that you could not possibly fathom unless you seriously study with a purpose. I have. I started by wanting to undersant the calander. Now i do. I have a calander. It is on my desktop and is my reference to so much knowledge that has opened. up. Resulting in seeing how faithfully aspects connect. and when trying to understand previous misconception, you will see how your ideals were never in accordance with THE REST of the bible. A VERSE here and verse there will not cut it. The whole picture is something else.

How do you know that I am not a serious Bible student? I have been reading the Scriptures for over 30 years. I have been praying since I was a little child. If you are a serious Bible student, as you claim to be, I would ask you to look into the entire Bible. Remember that the original KJV of 1611 included the 7 Books you are currently missing. In addition to this, remember where the KJV began. The New Testament of the KJV came from the “Textus Receptus” which was written down by Erasmus, a Catholic Priest. The Textus Receptus was not complete, as parts of it have disappeared by the time the KJV was being written. Therefore, the missing parts, mostly of Revelations, came from the Latin Vulgate, a Catholic Bible. The Old Testament of the KJV came from the Septuagint and it included 46 Books, not 39. I hope, as a serious Bible student you can see the Catholicity of the Bible you are reading, as well as the error you are falling into by reading an incomplete Bible.

And yes, i truely calculated the calender straight from the Bible. This was my initial study method and my understanding has grown, surpassed that of my church fathers and what they taught me.

I can dare to say that, yet i promise you friends, in all humility, it is true. thats why it is hard to debate beacuse i can’t unsee what i saw, and i need to be humble and meek and arguing about the truth is not serving our LORD.

It is up to you, to really seek the answer, not just accept what was spoon fed to you by the church and believe it because it seems holy. And you have all these technicalities, and doctrine to explain doctrine and moral law and politics and… its just too much. I did my part, I shared the truth, and i will answer any question and i will freely give my calandar, End

I have searched and have found. That is why I defend against heresies and misunderstandings. I invite you to consider what I’ve said as the Bible really is a Catholic Book, and goes hand in hand with the Oral Tradition passed down to us by the Apostles. All of which make up the “Entire Word of God.”