Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[BibleAnswer]

The Bible is “God breathed” so of course it’s Spiritual. However, when you rip it [Scripture] from the context of the teaching of the Church historically, you are almost certain to end up in error. The Bible uses all sorts of sorts of literary devices, hyperbole, metaphor…Not everything is a metaphor though. Your views seem to be very gnostic as someone else pointed out.

Are you a new convert by chance?

I’m sorry for being uncharitable, I am tempted to sometimes just win a debate. Are you open to Truth. Are you open to the possibility that some of your interpretations might be wrong? If so, there is room for talk.

Check the Church Fathers, the successors of the Apostles, and you will see that they have a different interpretation of what “water and Spirit” means. I believe, that the teaching has been consistent. Examine the way in which the early Church fathers like Ireneaus refuted those who were in error.

No problem man,

I understand how we can all get excited about something so incredibly important to all of us. Even though we have differeing ideas, we are still all ministering unto Christ. this does not change.

yes i am open to reason. I am fallible, I am a laymen for sure. thanks for the understandng word. I would love to talk about anything you wanna throw out there.

 

[estesbob]

haha, i understand where you are comeing.

I felt the same way, being a apart of a church, when i first discovered the truth from the bible. It is disheartening to hear, I know, yet doesn’t change the fact that everything i said can be proven in the bible.

Sense when doesn’t a person comapre scripture with scripture. When a person does this, you recognize patterns. such as water refering to the Word of God

You cant just arbitrarily assign a meaning or value to a word and then read a verse and understand it. It doenst work that way.

Yesterday i was listeneing to catholic answers, Jimmy Akkon was giving a respons to question concergning something.

He gives the answer that Water symbolizes chaos and evil.

This is ABSOLUTELY ONE HUNDRED PERCETN SCARY WRONG. Jimmy Akkon, a leading Catholic spokesman, is teaching that the WATER is CHAOS and evil and death.

The WATER IS THE WORD OF GOD…

Jimmy Akon is essentially teaching people wrong doctrine based off of HIS UNDERSTANDING.

everybody has that right. But you can TEST ANY TRUTH by reading the spiritual truth.

When i do this, i can clearly see that Water is not death and choas, But Life, truth and an anchor.

Scary scary scary thought to know that all of church teaches the same thing. I had to depart the church do see this truth myself. Now i see it, now i share it, now i tell you.

You can test this proof yourself by conparing the context of water with the countless times it is used.

the same with hell, or sheol, or hades, or gehennon. All representations of being uder Gods Wrath.

Gods Wrath is eternal.

Gods Wrath is Death.

Gods love, his truth, is Life.

I believe you have issues far beyond what a on-line discussion group is capable of adressing. I beleive it would be improper to to continue to debate with you. Good luck.

 

[cides23]

haha, i understand where you are comeing.

I felt the same way, being a apart of a church, when i first discovered the truth from the bible. It is disheartening to hear, I know, yet doesn’t change the fact that everything i said can be proven in the bible.

Sense when doesn’t a person comapre scripture with scripture. When a person does this, you recognize patterns. such as water refering to the Word of God

You cant just arbitrarily assign a meaning or value to a word and then read a verse and understand it. It doenst work that way.

Yesterday i was listeneing to catholic answers, Jimmy Akkon was giving a respons to question concergning something.

He gives the answer that Water symbolizes chaos and evil.

This is ABSOLUTELY ONE HUNDRED PERCETN SCARY WRONG. Jimmy Akkon, a leading Catholic spokesman, is teaching that the WATER is CHAOS and evil and death.

The WATER IS THE WORD OF GOD…

Jimmy Akon is essentially teaching people wrong doctrine based off of HIS UNDERSTANDING.

everybody has that right. But you can TEST ANY TRUTH by reading the spiritual truth.

When i do this, i can clearly see that Water is not death and choas, But Life, truth and an anchor.

Scary scary scary thought to know that all of church teaches the same thing. I had to depart the church do see this truth myself. Now i see it, now i share it, now i tell you.

You can test this proof yourself by conparing the context of water with the countless times it is used.

the same with hell, or sheol, or hades, or gehennon. All representations of being uder Gods Wrath.

Gods Wrath is eternal.

Gods Wrath is Death.

Gods love, his truth, is Life.

i was being sarcastic… Through out history this was never taught and if you come now and say this is the truth then well that’s scary as if this has been hidden through out history until now when you come with this new teaching.

It has been taught that the water that Jesus refer to is the water of Baptism, because well when in Acts it say, “who can refrain him from being baptised” did they hand the convert the bible or did they baptise using water?

Water and blood gushed from the side of Christ, the water representing Baptism, and Blood the Eucharist.

This the Holy Spirit has been teaching the Christians for 2000 years, now to say this is false teaching and the HOly SPirit has taught you different well all i can say either the whole 2000 year Christianity has been wrong and one person BIBLEANSWER is right…

the Word is not something but somebody, JESUS… can’t limit Jesus to just a book, because HE IS ALIVE in his church, in his priests his faithful along w/scripture.

 

[BibleAnswer]

i was being sarcastic… Through out history this was never taught and if you come now and say this is the truth then well that’s scary as if this has been hidden through out history until now when you come with this new teaching.

It has been taught that the water that Jesus refer to is the water of Baptism, because well when in Acts it say, “who can refrain him from being baptised” did they hand the convert the bible or did they baptise using water?

Water and blood gushed from the side of Christ, the water representing Baptism, and Blood the Eucharist.

This the Holy Spirit has been teaching the Christians for 2000 years, now to say this is false teaching and the HOly SPirit has taught you different well all i can say either the whole 2000 year Christianity has been wrong and one person BIBLEANSWER is right…

1. the baptism talked about in acts is a spiritual baptism.

that is why Jesus counters the Scribes and Pharesess by saying, “the baptism of John, was it of men or was it of God.”

the baptism the bible is refering to, is a spiritual baptism, this is why the Word is a metaphor for water. The Word of God will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

Actual water washes nothing away, and it is definately not spiritual because sprinking water on someone IS WORK A WORK CANNOT GET YOU SAVED.

that is why water is the Word. THe WORD WASHES YOUR SINS THROUGH BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

1. The book of Daniel, Daniel 12, talks about the little book that is to be sealed. This is in the bible, it is literal, it is also parabolic. The sealed book is the sum total of remaining knowledge and understanding. The host in heaven could not open the seals. What makes you think the church could, that Peter could, Nobody but the Lamb could break the seal.

for 2000 years the book was sealed.

In Revelations 8. the book is opened. Now NEW BIBLE INFORMATION can be discerned from the Holy spirit.

Unless you serioulsy study and read read read, will you understand this.

that is why i can come here and say interesting new things, and be proven right by the bible, the bible is now open, the seal has been opened. I didn’t break the seal. It just so happnes to be now.

It is my priveledge to try and explain this to people that are unawars. Insulting me doesnt hurt me. It wont change the facts.

Are you willing to be objective and open your eyes. or are you stuck in preconcieved ideas

Ideas taught based off of church understanding. I am teaching based off of Bible understanding.

 

[greggy53]

I believe you have issues far beyond what a on-line discussion group is capable of adressing. I beleive it would be improper to to continue to debate with you. Good luck.

I agree, I wish Bibleanswer the best, but we are arguing with a brick wall here.
Matthew 7:6

 

[LionHeart777]

BibleAnswer,

you said

I am teaching based off of Bible understanding.

I would argue that you are teaching based off of your own understanding of Scripture, which from what you have written seems to be incorrect in many places.

I had plenty of pre-conceived notions about The Catholic Church when I was a Fundamentalist. At one point I would say that I was probably anti- Catholic. Today, I am waiting for RCIA in the fall. Why? If you care to know I will tell you. There are plenty of others who have “swam the Tiber” that are FAR more knowledgeable than me here. Perhaps you would want to know why they are now Catholic.

 

[wmscott]

haha, i understand where you are comeing.

I felt the same way, being a apart of a church, when i first discovered the truth from the bible. It is disheartening to hear, I know, yet doesn’t change the fact that everything i said can be proven in the bible.

Sense when doesn’t a person comapre scripture with scripture. When a person does this, you recognize patterns. such as water refering to the Word of God

You cant just arbitrarily assign a meaning or value to a word and then read a verse and understand it. It doenst work that way.

Yesterday i was listeneing to catholic answers, Jimmy Akkon was giving a respons to question concergning something.

He gives the answer that Water symbolizes chaos and evil.

This is ABSOLUTELY ONE HUNDRED PERCETN SCARY WRONG. Jimmy Akkon, a leading Catholic spokesman, is teaching that the WATER is CHAOS and evil and death.

The WATER IS THE WORD OF GOD…

Jimmy Akon is essentially teaching people wrong doctrine based off of HIS UNDERSTANDING.

everybody has that right. But you can TEST ANY TRUTH by reading the spiritual truth.

When i do this, i can clearly see that Water is not death and choas, But Life, truth and an anchor.

Scary scary scary thought to know that all of church teaches the same thing. I had to depart the church do see this truth myself. Now i see it, now i share it, now i tell you.

You can test this proof yourself by conparing the context of water with the countless times it is used.

the same with hell, or sheol, or hades, or gehennon. All representations of being uder Gods Wrath.

Gods Wrath is eternal.

Gods Wrath is Death.

Gods love, his truth, is Life.

I am not trying to pick at you, but you are out there a bit. However, I would like to ask a question of you. You keep saying “compare scripture with scripture” as if it is your mantra or something, however when you are provided scripture and in context over and over, (Remember you even stated you are just a layman when it comes to interpreting scripture) and yet you “would deny the entire history of the Church, as well as the beliefs and teachings of the greatest theologians, Saints, martyrs and other leaders in Christian faith. To me it appears that by you posts that you have set yourself up to be superior in intellect, reasoning ability,and prophetic gift, if not in faith, to each and every one of the early Church fathers and the Doctors of the Church.” (thanks po18guy)

So if you are provided scripture that is compared with scripture, and playing by your rules, are you not guilty of everything you have accused most of us to be, which being in error?

You also state “that is why I can come here and say interesting new things,” New Things??? What New Things??? Are you saying that God hid all of the theology that you are espousing, waiting for you to come some 2000+ years later in order to reveal his truth to the world? Are you saying that He would lead 2000+ years of Christians in error and ignorance, just waiting for you to straighten us out? This is some pretty bold stuff.

 

[LionHeart777]

Cont’d:

You are left trying to defend your position, from what it looks like to me, by basically saying that everyone elses’ eyes are closed to this “new truth” you have. So we will inevitably, so it seems, be stuck using the same Scriptures to try to convince each other I believe that (as Jimmy Akin pointed out on the Bible Answer Man debate), this happened between the gnostics and the early Christian (Catholic), and that’s where the Catholics referred to the fact that they were in Churches founded by the Apostles while the gnostics weren’t. Basically, the same situation you and I are in now. You have your interpretation of Scritures and I don’t think they mean what they say. Think about it for a minute…pretend you’re a second century gnostic disciple and you see all around you that the Churches of the Apostles teach the same things regarding the Scriptures, and these interpretations don’t jive with the “new” gnostic interpretations, wouldn’t that be a cause of concern for you?

Same thing today, look around. All though there are schisms, all of the Apostolic Churches, I believe, teach the same thing about Baptism, Transubstantiation, Hell, whether salvation can be lost or not, the priests ability (given originally to the Apostles in Scripture) to absolve sins, etc. None use the Protestant Canon. And here I am looking around at where to find the truth, to me it is pretty obvious.

P.S. Jimmy Akin is not infallible but I think he’s a pretty good apologist in my opinion.

peace,

Nick

 

[BibleAnswer]

Everybody here reads the Word of God. No doubt about that.

We are all believers, we all minister unto Christ. No doubt about that either.

However, YOUUUUUUUU read a verse and look at it for what it says on top.

While, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII compare scripture with scripture, so as to discern what a parable is saying.

YOUUUUUUUU give me answers based off of the church understanding, and those answers never dig deeper than what the face of a certain verse is saying on top.

IIIIIIIIIIIII compare the context of a word to decipher what God means by it. Then I apply the knowledge to the Word.

So who has it backwards. I speak of the spiritual meaning, of the deeper true meaning, as is my job to do, knowing what i know, I cant just sit on it, I need to teach.

While you all rebuke me, never mind the fact that i follow the rule of comparing scripture with scripture.

Nobody is objective. Everybody wants to rebuke me. fine fine, all well and good.

I have been quite humble and answered to my ability, and never claimed special insight or special abilities. I am a layman, and yet i can discern something you cant. why.

Because I let go of what was taught to me in a church. I had to let it go, otherwise what i was reading would not sense.

However the bible ties together quite nicely.

I never gave an answer based off feeling or any variables outsided of the two the bible listed. these are the variable to discern truth

anybody can say anything. So you take it with a grain of salt, apply it to test, and see if it prevails.

but you all have no interest in at least testing what i have to teach. Like i am the devil.
The bible also speaks of a time when the true believers will be mocked and scorned.

This is happeneing in our lifetime. The thing that bothers all of you, is that you see it as me saying you are wrong, and that i am better equiped then you. or smarter than you.

no no no

i am a layman.

I was also in a church my whole life. However upon asking the question… "which church is the true church. Where should i go dad, who do i believe.’

the answer, read the bible.

the result, oh wow, so the actual truth is just in the bible? So I dont need a church to make sure i am in the true church? the true church are the wheat, the elect, the ones who can recognize that if the bible says, the son of perdition the man of sin, the abomination of desolation sits on the throne in Gods temple, then maybe i dont want to be in that environment.

the conclusion. Huh, so thats what hell is… Huh, So when it is speaking of High places it is speaking of churches, interesting. Huh, so works dont save me? but i though baptism meant i was saved. huh, so it turns out a that a work is a work is a work, and that a work will not save me.

 

[BibleAnswer]

Cont’d:

You are left trying to defend your position, from what it looks like to me, by basically saying that everyone elses’ eyes are closed to this “new truth” you have. So we will inevitably, so it seems, be stuck using the same Scriptures to try to convince each other I believe that (as Jimmy Akin pointed out on the Bible Answer Man debate), this happened between the gnostics and the early Christian (Catholic), and that’s where the Catholics referred to the fact that they were in Churches founded by the Apostles while the gnostics weren’t. Basically, the same situation you and I are in now. You have your interpretation of Scritures and I don’t think they mean what they say. Think about it for a minute…pretend you’re a second century gnostic disciple and you see all around you that the Churches of the Apostles teach the same things regarding the Scriptures, and these interpretations don’t jive with the “new” gnostic interpretations, wouldn’t that be a cause of concern for you?

Same thing today, look around. All though there are schisms, all of the Apostolic Churches, I believe, teach the same thing about Baptism, Transubstantiation, Hell, whether salvation can be lost or not, the priests ability (given originally to the Apostles in Scripture) to absolve sins, etc. None use the Protestant Canon. And here I am looking around at where to find the truth, to me it is pretty obvious.

P.S. Jimmy Akin is not infallible but I think he’s a pretty good apologist in my opinion.

peace,

Nick

yes, but look all around you Nick. There is not a church out there not steeped in controversy. why would Gods church be steeped in controversy, Because churches aren’t apostolic anymore

churches are Apostate. Apostate is a totally seperate meaning from Apostolic.

Apostate means that there are Tares in the Church. Apostate means that the true meaning of the Gospel, as is evident on this forum, has been eskewed and perverted.

To many happeneings in the world about bad church. this has always been the case you might say, that someone will pick on a church.

However you have priesnt openly serving MAMMON, selling thier books, selling there time for money, sexual contraversy. all of these negatives take away from the positive that is the Word. You mix contravery and the Bible together, you get a differnt bible, you get differnt doctrine.

You run the risk of being taught by a tare.

 

[wmscott]

Everybody here reads the Word of God. No doubt about that.

We are all believers, we all minister unto Christ. No doubt about that either.

However, YOUUUUUUUU read a verse and look at it for what it says on top.

While, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII compare scripture with scripture, so as to discern what a parable is saying.

YOUUUUUUUU give me answers based off of the church understanding, and those answers never dig deeper than what the face of a certain verse is saying on top.

IIIIIIIIIIIII compare the context of a word to decipher what God means by it. Then I apply the knowledge to the Word.

So who has it backwards. I speak of the spiritual meaning, of the deeper true meaning, as is my job to do, knowing what i know, I cant just sit on it, I need to teach.

While you all rebuke me, never mind the fact that i follow the rule of comparing scripture with scripture.

Nobody is objective. Everybody wants to rebuke me. fine fine, all well and good.

I have been quite humble and answered to my ability, and never claimed special insight or special abilities. I am a layman, and yet i can discern something you cant. why.

Because I let go of what was taught to me in a church. I had to let it go, otherwise what i was reading would not sense.

However the bible ties together quite nicely.

I never gave an answer based off feeling or any variables outsided of the two the bible listed. these are the variable to discern truth

anybody can say anything. So you take it with a grain of salt, apply it to test, and see if it prevails.

but you all have no interest in at least testing what i have to teach. Like i am the devil.
The bible also speaks of a time when the true believers will be mocked and scorned.

This is happeneing in our lifetime. The thing that bothers all of you, is that you see it as me saying you are wrong, and that i am better equiped then you. or smarter than you.

no no no

i am a layman.

I was also in a church my whole life. However upon asking the question… "which church is the true church. Where should i go dad, who do i believe.’

the answer, read the bible.

the result, oh wow, so the actual truth is just in the bible? So I dont need a church to make sure i am in the true church? the true church are the wheat, the elect, the ones who can recognize that if the bible says, the son of perdition the man of sin, the abomination of desolation sits on the throne in Gods temple, then maybe i dont want to be in that environment.

the conclusion. Huh, so thats what hell is… Huh, So when it is speaking of High places it is speaking of churches, interesting. Huh, so works dont save me? but i though baptism meant i was saved. huh, so it turns out a that a work is a work is a work, and that a work will not save me.

You state “So who has it backwards. I speak of the spiritual meaning, of the deeper true meaning, as is my job to do, knowing what i know, I cant just sit on it, I need to teach.” So what happens when you teach heresy? What happens when you teach error and how would you know when you are teaching heresy or error? if you say that you would never do that and that you would just go to the Bible, then you are implying that you are infallible. You have no checks and balances.

 

[BibleAnswer]

You state “So who has it backwards. I speak of the spiritual meaning, of the deeper true meaning, as is my job to do, knowing what i know, I cant just sit on it, I need to teach.” So what happens when you teach heresy? What happens when you teach error and how would you know when you are teaching heresy or error? if you say that you would never do that and that you would just go to the Bible, then you are implying that you are infallible. You have no checks and balances.

You make a valid, point, though i did not put my foot in mouth.

I know for fact, certian truths. these are the truths I am teaching. There is much I dont know, so i constantly study and learn before i make any sort of pronouncment.

If i am unsure of something, i would say, I am sorry, I just dont know the spiritual meaning, i just cant comment becaues i would be guessing.

but as it stands, i am pretty versed in the conversations on this forum, so i am able to speak with authority on the subject.

Nobody has broaches a subject or verse i happen to unfamiliar with, at least not yet, so I can gladly teach what i learned.

Nobody needs to listen, it is not my job to pursuade anybody, that is the Holy spirits job.

I simply say, here is my source. please go look it up yourself using the proper technique to understanding the bible.

that is what i say. complete humility my friend.

yet once you know a spiritual truth, you cant unknow it, so when somebody has an answer to give me, i can test it spiritually from the bible, and see if it is true or not, if it fits or not.

 

[ScotchIrish]

Cachonga, after Jesus established the “Church” through Peter and the Apostles, He also said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So for you to say that “the Catholic Church abandoned its teaching authority” is ludicrous. Christ would not allow that to happen, per His words. You know you Bible verses better than i, look it up.

 

[LionHeart777]

But,

BibleAnswer, dig this. There were scandals in the Church already by the time the NT was penned. Remember the young Corinthian man who was excommunicated? Annias and Saphira?

I think you have good intentions. I just don’t agree with you. Again, I’m sorry for being uncharitable, I will try to be nicer. However, you have to realize too that you are teaching things, things that contradict Early Christians, the Church, and I would say Scripture…so you have to be careful, as you know we will all give an account and those who teach will be judged harder.

I wasn’t raised in a Church. My dad (who is now a Christian) was heavily influenced by Zen Buddhism and could remember rejecting Christianity as a young child. My mom was a Christian (Protestant) but, we only went to Church a few times. I really didn’t have any religous upbringing, besides my mom’s brother and sister who were very religous and my great grandma. My aunt was the most instrumental having told me about the Lord when I was 7.

I converted a few years back, and all I had was my Bible (Protestant Canon.) Because of my culture, I believe it was easy and natural for me to be Protestant, that’s what I new. I studied, read–but I was inevitably influenced by Protestantism.

I believe that Scripture should be compared with Scripture as you do, in fact, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought St. Augustine was credited with originating that. That, I believe is what the Theologians call Hermeneutics.

I wasn’t baptised as an adult although I may have been as a child, so my mom says. I used to have a view of Baptism probably very similar to yours.

I believe it was Scott Hahn (another Tiber swimmer) who pointed to the Incarnation of Jesus and pointed out that God took on physical matter to redeem us, in his book “Swear to God: The Promise and Power of the Sacraments.” Or maybe I heard it on the radio and it was someone else maybe?? anyway, as this person explained, God uses the physical also in the Sacrements. As someone else pointed out that I heard, (or maybe Dr. Hahn) do you remember Jesus using mud and spittle to heal the blind man? Was it the “mud” that healed him? No, it was God but he worked through the physical. Same with Baptism.

p.s. My parents both love the Lord now:thumbsup: thanks be to God.

 

[wmscott]

You make a valid, point, though i did not put my foot in mouth.

I know for fact, certian truths. these are the truths I am teaching. There is much I dont know, so i constantly study and learn before i make any sort of pronouncment.

If i am unsure of something, i would say, I am sorry, I just dont know the spiritual meaning, i just cant comment becaues i would be guessing.

but as it stands, i am pretty versed in the conversations on this forum, so i am able to speak with authority on the subject.

Nobody has broaches a subject or verse i happen to unfamiliar with, at least not yet, so I can gladly teach what i learned.

Nobody needs to listen, it is not my job to pursuade anybody, that is the Holy spirits job.

I simply say, here is my source. please go look it up yourself using the proper technique to understanding the bible.

that is what i say. complete humility my friend.

yet once you know a spiritual truth, you cant unknow it, so when somebody has an answer to give me, i can test it spiritually from the bible, and see if it is true or not, if it fits or not.

You state “so I am able to speak with authority on the subject.” Why should anyone accept your “Authority”? This goes back to you setting yourself up as being infallible at this point, and again you have only yourself for checks and balances.

You state “yet once you know a spiritual truth, you cant unknow it, so when somebody has an answer to give me, I can test it spiritually from the bible, and see if it is true or not, if it fits or not.” I can agree with the first part of this statement. However, I still need the teaching authority of the church for checks and balances to ensure I do not fall into error or heresy. The rest is a problem for me, to test for truth, Who’s truth? the truth as you discern it to be? Once again we are back to you setting yourself up as being infallible. Furthermore, to test to see if it fits? Fits what? Your interpretations, philosophy, or your “Authority”? Do I really need to tell you where this once again takes us back to?

 

[Ginger2]

Why is the Douay-Rheims Bible not reliable?

Two Popes determined the DRB has errors and set to the task of making corrections. It has been revised.

Here is an excerpt of their decision:
“In realizing this revision, the old text of the Vulgate edition was taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever it departs from them or interprets them less correctly.”

The complete text can be read at
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JPTHESAU.HTM
Apostolic Constitution SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS
Pope John Paul II

(I am optimistic other popes in the future will correct the rest of the errors)

I might add the errors were corrected to match Protestant Bibles.

Ginger

 

[BibleAnswer]

But,

BibleAnswer, dig this. There were scandals in the Church already by the time the NT was penned. Remember the young Corinthian man who was excommunicated? Annias and Saphira?

I think you have good intentions. I just don’t agree with you. Again, I’m sorry for being uncharitable, I will try to be nicer. However, you have to realize too that you are teaching things, things that contradict Early Christians, the Church, and I would say Scripture…so you have to be careful, as you know we will all give an account and those who teach will be judged harder.

I wasn’t raised in a Church. My dad (who is now a Christian) was heavily influenced by Zen Buddhism and could remember rejecting Christianity as a young child. My mom was a Christian (Protestant) but, we only went to Church a few times. I really didn’t have any religous upbringing, besides my mom’s brother and sister who were very religous and my great grandma. My aunt was the most instrumental having told me about the Lord when I was 7.

I converted a few years back, and all I had was my Bible (Protestant Canon.) Because of my culture, I believe it was easy and natural for me to be Protestant, that’s what I new. I studied, read–but I was inevitably influenced by Protestantism.

I believe that Scripture should be compared with Scripture as you do, in fact, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought St. Augustine was credited with originating that. That, I believe is what the Theologians call Hermeneutics.

I wasn’t baptised as an adult although I may have been as a child, so my mom says. I used to have a view of Baptism probably very similar to yours.

I believe it was Scott Hahn (another Tiber swimmer) who pointed to the Incarnation of Jesus and pointed out that God took on physical matter to redeem us, in his book “Swear to God: The Promise and Power of the Sacraments.” Or maybe I heard it on the radio and it was someone else maybe?? anyway, as this person explained, God uses the physical also in the Sacrements. As someone else pointed out that I heard, (or maybe Dr. Hahn) do you remember Jesus using mud and spittle to heal the blind man? Was it the “mud” that healed him? No, it was God but he worked through the physical. Same with Baptism.

p.s. My parents both love the Lord now:thumbsup: thanks be to God.

#1 2Tim 3 is the scripture that tells us to comapre precept to precept, line to line, line to line, verse to verse.

That is where it originated from

#2 While Christ was here on earth, ministering, He was here as the Word made flesh. He as all the attributes and fullness of the Godhead. He was exercising His AUTHORITY over every kind of possible situation. He is in control of the weather, of disease, of being posessed, as LEGION was.

Christ had complete authority over everthing and everything he did was to prove the truth about spiritual salvation. It wasn’t the mud, or the spit, it was the mans FAITH in Christ, or rather, Christs faith in the man that cured his blindness. this is a spiritual message, that only through Christ, meaning the Word, can one open there spiritual eyes, to see the Truth, that would be Christ and the Word, because the Truth saves you. Christ was the Truth. The mans belief saved his sight, not the LORD Spitting into mud and whiping it away, this was only a picture, of the spiritual meaning.

Just like everything else in the bible.

 

[po18guy]

A parable: There were two forum users who were on separate missions to lecture that billion or so ignorant Catholics on what the truth is. One cannot say what he is, only what he isn’t. The other apparently worships the bible. Both disagree with one another on bible doctrine, but do they argue amongst them selves? No. Both intuitively know that the Catholic Church is the enemy. This is because it teaches differently from them - never mind that they teach differently from one another. Neither reveals any particular denial of self, or obedience to anything but their own opinion of a book. But, since neither has plucked an eye out, or cut a hand off when it offended them, neither appears to follow that book, either. Both spout private interpretation after private interpretation, conveniently ignoring the fact that the very same bible prohibits exactly what they are doing. Briefly pausing from his unending task of roaming the earth, the evil one is smiling. His demons have done their work well. Two more souls lead astray.

 

[Arandur]

Not quite, the King James Bible was concieved in 1604 and was pblished in 1611

that is only 399 years

So you 199 years off.

Secondly, there is an Apocrypha in the apendix section of the King James Version, This is included in the bible as a resource and learning material, however is NOT HOLY CANON, IS NOT INSPIRED BY GOD.

Honestly buddy, I couldn’t tell you one way or the other, i am not as educated about all this as you would think. My sole authority is the King james bible because it was derived from the original Hebrew, the original Greek, the translation is the most accurate and the closest to the original. The Apocrypha, does not jive with the totallity of the bible. It introduces concepts and principals that are not found any where else in the bible, all thousand plus pages. So becaue the concept was obviosly derived from man, such as purgatory, no where does the bible mention purpagoty, purgatory is an alltoghther man made invention. For example. If I were to believe in purgatory, this would be a doctrine that the bible did not introduce to me, thusly if i believed in it, i would be elevating myself above God becaue i can assume to know what God really meant, when he forgot to mention purgatory and what it means. Then i would be under gods Wrath, just like the seven churches in rev.

why do you believe in purgatory. Dont you believe that Christ dieing for you is sufficient. How come the thief was saved and was never baptised or performed confession or ate the body of Christ. You cant anser this reasonably without further study of the bible. Everything clicks into place.

This is why there is no purgatory. Because when you die, you die. Your soul ceases to be, it is destroyed, annhilalatted. If you are not saved that is, you go into the ground and that is it for you. a dead person cannot feel pain. our soul can not feel pain. it just ceases to be.

If you were reborn again, saved. your soul is allready payed for, there is not purgatory, your soul goes to heaven, to abrahams bossum, to be with God, to walk with Christ,

Just as Christ said to the thief on the the cross

THIs day you shall surely walk with me.

The thief was reborn, he had a new resurected soal, because we are born spiritually dead through adam.

He didn’t have to wait, he didn’t have to perform a baptism, sacrament, or confesion. Gods grace saved him, that day

So a soul is dead if it was not first saved? What about Lazarus (either one)? What about Lazarus asking to be sent or have a messenger sent to his brothers who are on the path to where he is? That man’s soul is either in purgatory or in hell; it is not just "dissolved’ as you would have us believe. Show anywhere in Scripture where it says the souls of those who are not saved are destroyed.

I maintain that story is about purgatory, for how could Lazarus have such a spirit of repentance and not be in Heaven? How could he even communicate with Abraham if his soul was dissolved or in hell, eternally separated from God? Nope. That’s a pretty clear reference to purgatory, right out of Luke.

 

[po18guy]

So a soul is dead if it was not first saved? What about Lazarus (either one)? What about Lazarus asking to be sent or have a messenger sent to his brothers who are on the path to where he is? That man’s soul is either in purgatory or in hell; it is not just "dissolved’ as you would have us believe. Show anywhere in Scripture where it says the souls of those who are not saved are destroyed.

I maintain that story is about purgatory, for how could Lazarus have such a spirit of repentance and not be in Heaven? How could he even communicate with Abraham if his soul was dissolved or in hell, eternally separated from God? Nope. That’s a pretty clear reference to purgatory, right out of Luke.

I think you mean the unnamed “rich man”. Lazarus was the poor beggar at the rich man’s gate. Lazarus was being comforted at the bosom of Abraham.