2
- Status
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
The publisher publishes to make money, books such as these are not even read by the publisher in the publishing process.
Sorry, but this is a spurious argument.
SO IN OTHER WORDS,
YOU READILY TRUST A CAPITOLISTIC ENTITY FOR REVELATION,
BUT NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE?
THE DISCERNMENT OR ASSURADNESS THAT THE CONTENT OF THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE IS “NOT” IMPORTANT TO YOU?
THIS WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLISHING COMPANY THAT PRODUCES THE SATANIC BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE IN PRODUCING THE HOLY BIBLE “JUST BECAUSE” THEY MAKE MONEY…THAT THEIR FOCUS ON THE BOTTOM LINE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO TRUST THEM.
Sorry, but this is a spurious argument.
SO IN OTHER WORDS,
YOU READILY TRUST A CAPITOLISTIC ENTITY FOR REVELATION,
BUT NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE?
THE DISCERNMENT OR ASSURADNESS THAT THE CONTENT OF THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE IS “NOT” IMPORTANT TO YOU?
THIS WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLISHING COMPANY THAT PRODUCES THE SATANIC BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE IN PRODUCING THE HOLY BIBLE “JUST BECAUSE” THEY MAKE MONEY…THAT THEIR FOCUS ON THE BOTTOM LINE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO TRUST THEM.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
A recurrent theme on this thread is that the Catholic Church is the pre-eminent authority for the interpretation of Scripture, and that we, as individuals, should not expect to interpret Scripture differently and expect to be correct.
Some posters have even argued that if my interpretation is different, then by definition, I am not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Generalisations are useful, but they should be tested by specific instances, just as scientific theories are tested by individual experiments.
So I thought that I would offer you the opportunity to conduct just such experiments, focusing on specific Church doctrine and the Scriptural proof texts that the Church offers.
For this to be useful, we must first agree on a basic definition, else we will be discussing at crossed purposes.
I would offer this: the concept of Scripture interpretation includes the presentation of proof texts to substantiate a doctrine. If the proof text can be shown to be irrelevant, doubtful, or by agreement wrong, that is evidence that the Church Scripture interpretation is wrong in that instance, and thus by definition, the Church is not the pre-eminent authority in every instance.
Disallowing a proof text is not proof that a doctrine is wrong – it speaks to the interpretation of that passage of Scripture only, and can not in that instance be extrapolated to disallow a doctrine (unless of course, it is the only proof text).
Fair?
There is one other definition that needs clarification, and that is: what is meant by “The Church” in this context? The Church seems one of those rubbery terms, just like the scientific term “evolution”: it means whatever one wants it to mean in a given context. I don’t know how to resolve this, maybe you can help.
Whenever I study proof texts on Catholic websites, I wonder at the authority behind them. Is this official Catholic teaching, or is it a compilation of personal opinions? How does one know? Maybe you can help with that as well.
So now, let us consider one example.
… continued
Some posters have even argued that if my interpretation is different, then by definition, I am not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Generalisations are useful, but they should be tested by specific instances, just as scientific theories are tested by individual experiments.
So I thought that I would offer you the opportunity to conduct just such experiments, focusing on specific Church doctrine and the Scriptural proof texts that the Church offers.
For this to be useful, we must first agree on a basic definition, else we will be discussing at crossed purposes.
I would offer this: the concept of Scripture interpretation includes the presentation of proof texts to substantiate a doctrine. If the proof text can be shown to be irrelevant, doubtful, or by agreement wrong, that is evidence that the Church Scripture interpretation is wrong in that instance, and thus by definition, the Church is not the pre-eminent authority in every instance.
Disallowing a proof text is not proof that a doctrine is wrong – it speaks to the interpretation of that passage of Scripture only, and can not in that instance be extrapolated to disallow a doctrine (unless of course, it is the only proof text).
Fair?
There is one other definition that needs clarification, and that is: what is meant by “The Church” in this context? The Church seems one of those rubbery terms, just like the scientific term “evolution”: it means whatever one wants it to mean in a given context. I don’t know how to resolve this, maybe you can help.
Whenever I study proof texts on Catholic websites, I wonder at the authority behind them. Is this official Catholic teaching, or is it a compilation of personal opinions? How does one know? Maybe you can help with that as well.
So now, let us consider one example.
… continued
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
May I offer this as a test of Scripture interpretation by the Catholic Church.
Let us take the doctrine of Apostolic succession and authority, and I will quote from the Catholic website, www.scripturecatholic.com
Under the heading, Authority is transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination, we find the entry:
” Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.”
For this to be a valid proof text, there are a number of elements which must be examined:
Other sources make similar statements but none that I can find identify Ananias as a Bishop.
There is the suggestion that Ananias taught Paul, as in “he became Paul’s instructor”. This is possible, but nowhere does Scripture say this directly. Paul himself said that the Lord told him, “Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told what you have been appointed to do” (Acts 22:10). Acts 9:16 says it somewhat differently, “Go, for this man is my chosen instrument to bring my name before gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for my name”. So God said, “I myself will show”, but whether that includes the teachings of the Gospel is not clear. Later, Acts 9:19 tells us that Paul spent a few days with the other disciples before he began preaching.
So, in passing, what are we to make of Ananias’ role in the teaching of Paul? Note that this is not essential to our discussion, but it does show how meaning is often “read into” Scripture, rather than derived from it. Only God is specifically mentioned in relation to Paul’s instruction, though Ananias and the other disciples can be theorised. Would just a few days of human instruction have been sufficient for Paul to have begun preaching, or would it have required Divine revelation for him to have acquired the considerable knowledge he demonstrates in such a short period of time?
We do know that Ananias baptised Paul, but was the laying on of hands a sacramental ordination? Look at the sequence given in Acts 9:17-18. Paul goes into Ananias’ house, Ananias lays his hands on Paul saying “Saul, I have been sent by the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, so that you may recover your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit”, Paul’s sight was restored, he arose and was baptised. Now, was the laying on of hands a simple blessing, a function of the baptism process, or a sacramental ordination as the proof text claims? Based on the long understood doctrine that “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit”, we can reasonably assume that mention of the Holy Spirit in Acts 9:17 is related to Paul’s baptism. I cannot see how this text in any way relates to ordination, the simple interpretation is that of baptism and blessing.
How did Paul see himself in relation to the Church?
Paul begins each Epistle in much the same way, he describes himself as a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and variations on that theme. This doesn’t tell us much about how he sees himself in relation to the Church. In Galatians, however, he says it differently, “From Paul, an apostle appointed not by human beings nor through any human being but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead”. Here, he explicitly declares that his appointment was not by or through “any human being”.
This surely refutes the notion that Paul “only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop”.
In summary, we don’t know that Ananias was a bishop, the laying on of hands by Ananias was most probably in the process of baptism, and Paul himself explicitly affirms that he was not appointed by any human being.
For a Catholic apologist to offer this as “a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles” is simply absurd.
Again, as I said earlier, this does not disprove the case for ordination, but it does demonstrate that the Church (whatever its definition in this context) is capable of grave error in the interpretation of Scripture.
Your thoughts?
Let us take the doctrine of Apostolic succession and authority, and I will quote from the Catholic website, www.scripturecatholic.com
Under the heading, Authority is transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination, we find the entry:
” Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.”
For this to be a valid proof text, there are a number of elements which must be examined:
- Was Ananias of Damascus, one of the 70 disciples referred to by Luke, truly a bishop?
- Was the laying on of hands a “sacramental ordination”?
- Did Paul consider himself anointed by the Church?
Other sources make similar statements but none that I can find identify Ananias as a Bishop.
There is the suggestion that Ananias taught Paul, as in “he became Paul’s instructor”. This is possible, but nowhere does Scripture say this directly. Paul himself said that the Lord told him, “Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told what you have been appointed to do” (Acts 22:10). Acts 9:16 says it somewhat differently, “Go, for this man is my chosen instrument to bring my name before gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for my name”. So God said, “I myself will show”, but whether that includes the teachings of the Gospel is not clear. Later, Acts 9:19 tells us that Paul spent a few days with the other disciples before he began preaching.
So, in passing, what are we to make of Ananias’ role in the teaching of Paul? Note that this is not essential to our discussion, but it does show how meaning is often “read into” Scripture, rather than derived from it. Only God is specifically mentioned in relation to Paul’s instruction, though Ananias and the other disciples can be theorised. Would just a few days of human instruction have been sufficient for Paul to have begun preaching, or would it have required Divine revelation for him to have acquired the considerable knowledge he demonstrates in such a short period of time?
We do know that Ananias baptised Paul, but was the laying on of hands a sacramental ordination? Look at the sequence given in Acts 9:17-18. Paul goes into Ananias’ house, Ananias lays his hands on Paul saying “Saul, I have been sent by the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, so that you may recover your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit”, Paul’s sight was restored, he arose and was baptised. Now, was the laying on of hands a simple blessing, a function of the baptism process, or a sacramental ordination as the proof text claims? Based on the long understood doctrine that “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit”, we can reasonably assume that mention of the Holy Spirit in Acts 9:17 is related to Paul’s baptism. I cannot see how this text in any way relates to ordination, the simple interpretation is that of baptism and blessing.
How did Paul see himself in relation to the Church?
Paul begins each Epistle in much the same way, he describes himself as a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and variations on that theme. This doesn’t tell us much about how he sees himself in relation to the Church. In Galatians, however, he says it differently, “From Paul, an apostle appointed not by human beings nor through any human being but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead”. Here, he explicitly declares that his appointment was not by or through “any human being”.
This surely refutes the notion that Paul “only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop”.
In summary, we don’t know that Ananias was a bishop, the laying on of hands by Ananias was most probably in the process of baptism, and Paul himself explicitly affirms that he was not appointed by any human being.
For a Catholic apologist to offer this as “a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles” is simply absurd.
Again, as I said earlier, this does not disprove the case for ordination, but it does demonstrate that the Church (whatever its definition in this context) is capable of grave error in the interpretation of Scripture.
Your thoughts?
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
Where do you get this nonsense.The publisher publishes to make money, books such as these are not even read by the publisher in the publishing process.
Sorry, but this is a spurious argument.
SO IN OTHER WORDS,
YOU READILY TRUST A CAPITOLISTIC ENTITY FOR REVELATION,
BUT NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE?
THE DISCERNMENT OR ASSURADNESS THAT THE CONTENT OF THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE IS “NOT” IMPORTANT TO YOU?
THIS WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLISHING COMPANY THAT PRODUCES THE SATANIC BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE IN PRODUCING THE HOLY BIBLE “JUST BECAUSE” THEY MAKE MONEY…THAT THEIR FOCUS ON THE BOTTOM LINE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO TRUST THEM.
The authors and editors of the various versions of the Bible check that the published version is true to their submission. Go get yourself a number of different Bibles and study the credentials of the editors. Study what they have to say about how they compiled the version, whether they are trying for accurate word translation, or paraphrasing for understanding.
For you to question their ethical and intellectual integrity does you no credit.
A student of the Bible, and there are many of us, study many versions of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant. My preference is the New King James, but if you were observant, you would notice that on this site, I quote the authorised Catholic New Jerusalem Bible to avoid confusion.
I also study the Bible Concordance by different editors, Catholic and Protestant.
Are you saying that I, and the hundreds of thousands of Bible students, and the thousands (or more) Bible scholars and academics, would not notice some satanic error deliberately introduced by the publisher?
Would you tell Stephen King that his published book was not true to the copy he submitted?
Truly, I do think that you need to calm down and think through these issues from a standpoint of knowledge and scholarship, and not make wild unsubstantiated assertions.
They do you no credit, and I doubt whether your Church would thank you for presenting it in that light.
2
2ndGen
Guest
A recurrent theme on this thread is that the Catholic Church is the pre-eminent authority for the interpretation of Scripture, and that we, as individuals, should not expect to interpret Scripture differently and expect to be correct.
NOT FROM ME. INDIVIDUALS HAVE EVERY ACCESS TO THE WORD OF GOD THAT THE CHURCH HAS. HOWEVER, WHEN DECIDING MATTERS WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFICATION, ONE RESORTS TO THE CHURCH.
WHY NOT ASK GOD? WHO SAYS WE CAN’T. HOWEVER, GOD CHOSE THE CHURCH TO CANONIZE HIS WORD AND TO REVEAL IT TO THE WORLD. WHY WOULD HE “NOT” CHOOSE IT TO EXPLAIN IT?
EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO READING THE BIBLE AND TO UNDERSTANDING IT, BUT AS WE ALL KNOW (CATHOLICS AND NON-`CATHOLICS), READING IT DOESN’T EQUAL UNDERSTANDING IT. EVEN THE BIBLE TEACHES US THAT SOME OF US NEED HELP IN UNDERSTANDING THE LESSONS OF SCRIPTURE:
ActS 8:31 - … "How can I understand the Scripture unless someone guides me?
Some posters have even argued that if my interpretation is different, then by definition, I am not guided by the Holy Spirit.
WELL BROTHER, I’M NOT ONE TO TELL ANYONE WHERE THEIR UNDERSTANDING COMES FROM. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE DISCERNMENT OF SCRIPTURE IS A WORK OF GOD AND THAT HE WILLS TO WHOM HE WANTS TO REVEAL HIS WORD.
I WOULD STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ANYONE WHO STATES THAT IF YOUR OPINION DIFFERS, THAT YOU ARE NOT GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.
So I thought that I would offer you the opportunity to conduct just such experiments, focusing on specific Church doctrine and the Scriptural proof texts that the Church offers.
For this to be useful, we must first agree on a basic definition, else we will be discussing at crossed purposes.
I would offer this: the concept of Scripture interpretation includes the presentation of proof texts to substantiate a doctrine. If the proof text can be shown to be irrelevant, doubtful, or by agreement wrong, that is evidence that the Church Scripture interpretation is wrong in that instance, and thus by definition, the Church is not the pre-eminent authority in every instance.
LET ME JUST SAY THIS…THIS TITLE OF PRE-EMINENCY SEEMS TO SUGGEST THIS GATE BETWEEN GOD AND MAN ON THE MATTERS OF SCRIPTURE WHICH I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT SUCH A DIVISIOIN EXISTS. THE CHURCH IS A TOOL THAT SERVES CHRISTIANITY. IT DOESN’T RULE US. THOSE WHO COME TO THE CHURCH DO SO OF THEIR OWN WILL.
Disallowing a proof text is not proof that a doctrine is wrong – it speaks to the interpretation of that passage of Scripture only, and can not in that instance be extrapolated to disallow a doctrine (unless of course, it is the only proof text).
Fair?
SEE, HOW CAN ONE PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF AIR? YOU COULD SAY YOU FEEL IT ON WINDY DAY, BUT THAT’S A BREEZE, IT’S NO LONGER AIR ANYMORE. SUCH IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE. FOR ME PERSONALLY, IT CAN’T BE COMPARTMENTALIZED INTO HUMAN REASONING.
TAKE THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. HOW CAN ONE HONESTLY TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT IN A RATIONAL MANNER? ONCE ONE BEGINS TALKING ABOUT THE SUPERNATURAL, ALL “REASON” GOES OUT THE WINDOW. SOME LEARNING EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE EVIDENCE WITHIN THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE.
There is one other definition that needs clarification, and that is: what is meant by “The Church” in this context?
THE CHURCH: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Whenever I study proof texts on Catholic websites, I wonder at the authority behind them. Is this official Catholic teaching, or is it a compilation of personal opinions? How does one know? Maybe you can help with that as well.
WHILE I TOO LOOK INTO CATHOLIC WEBSITES, I DON’T RELY ON THEM AS THE AUTHORITY. ANYBODY CAN CREATE A WEBSITE AND CALL IT A CATHOLIC WEBSITE AND HAVE COMPLETELY UNORTHODOX VIEWS.
I PERSONALLY PREFER TO DEBATE FROM SCRIPTURE.
So now, let us consider one example.
… continued
2
2ndGen
Guest
Where do you get this nonsense.
The authors and editors of the various versions of the Bible check that the published version is true to their submission. Go get yourself a number of different Bibles and study the credentials of the editors. Study what they have to say about how they compiled the version, whether they are trying for accurate word translation, or paraphrasing for understanding.
I JUST LOOK FOR THE IMPRIMATUR ON THE PUBLISHER’S PAGE. THEN I KNOW IT’S RIGHT.
For you to question their ethical and intellectual integrity does you no credit.
HEY, TO ME IT’S COMMON SENSE…IF YOU PARTAKE IN SPREADING THE ANTI-GOSPEL OF SATANISM, THEN YOU IN NO WAY CAN LEGITIMATELY SPREAD THE TRUE GOSPEL. IT’S THE WHOLE YOU CAN’T SERVE MAN AND GOD ISSUE. SO, A PERSON THAT SERVES SATAN’S CAUSE CAN’T SERVE GOD.
DO YOU TRUST THE PUBLISHERS OF THE SATANIC BIBLE?
A student of the Bible, and there are many of us, study many versions of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant. My preference is the New King James, but if you were observant, you would notice that on this site, I quote the authorised Catholic New Jerusalem Bible to avoid confusion.
THAT’S FINE. BUT I CHOOSE TO GO WITH THE BIBLE THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE SAME CHURCH THAT CANONIZED IT. AS FOR THE REST OF THE “VERSIONS”, THEY ARE EXACTLY THAT…JUST “VERSIONS”.
AS FOR KING JAMES, I DON’T THINK GOD WOULD CHOOSE AN UNREPENTANT HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILE TO AUTHORIZE HIS WORD.
WHICH OF THE OVER 40 VERSIONS OF THE KJV DO YOU USE PARTICULARLY?
I also study the Bible Concordance by different editors, Catholic and Protestant.
Are you saying that I, and the hundreds of thousands of Bible students, and the thousands (or more) Bible scholars and academics, would not notice some satanic error deliberately introduced by the publisher?
THE GREATEST TRICK THE DEVIL EVER PLAYED ON THE WORLD, WAS CONVINCING IT THAT IT DIDN’T EXIST.
I’LL TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND OUTRIGHTLY SAY THAT THERE ARE GROUPS OUT THERE POSING AS CHRISTIANS WHO TRULY WORK FOR SATAN. THESE ARE THE WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.
Would you tell Stephen King that his published book was not true to the copy he submitted?
IF IT WASN’T AND I HAD ANY RESPONSIBLITY IN IT, YES. OF COURSE.
Truly, I do think that you need to calm down and think through these issues from a standpoint of knowledge and scholarship, and not make wild unsubstantiated assertions.
WELL, ALL SCHOLARSHIP HAS TO BEGIN WITH THE TRUTH AND WITH HONEST SOURCES. SO THAT LEAVES ALL BIBLES NOT AUTHORIZED BY IT’S CANONIZER AS LEGITIMATE OUT.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
I’m curious, what do you think is Satan’s goal?
Is it to turn people from God generally, and Jesus specifically, or to turn them from the Catholic Church?
If people place their faith entirely in Jesus Christ, if they submit themselves entirely to God’s will, trusting in Him completely, believing that their salvation is by grace through faith, are they being misled by Satan?
Yes, there are people posing as Christians who are wolves in sheep’s clothing, there are evangelical and pentecostal churches with theologies that just astound and dismay me, but strangely, they are using exactly the same texts as you and I, both Catholic and Protestant, to derive their doctrines. This does not indicate that the Bible versions are in error, nor does the existence of Bible versions prove anything in and of itself.
Are you aware that the Catholic Church approves of many different Bible versions, not just one as you seem to suggest?
Do you understand the reason for the different versions?
If you haven’t already done so, you may care to read further here:
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
2
2ndGen
Guest
Jesus rode a bike to temple.
Is that in the Bible? No, but if I were to insert that into a bible and print out 10,000 copies of it and drop them in the middle of a jungle and those bibles were used to convert the natives there and they came to Christ by the use of that bible version, then they would believe that Jesus rode a bike to temple.
Why? Because it’s “in” what they perceive to be “the bible”.
What happens when they meet the real world?
They get shocked to find out that Jesus didn’t ride a bike to temple. So, what do they do? They then begin to question the whole faith about Jesus. What else isnt true?
Then they find out that there “is” a true Bible and that it resembles their bible, except for that one part.
Some leave the faith, never trusting books again.
Some remain in the faith and grow stronger putting their pride and fear to the side and holding on The Word brought to them by their false version of the bible.
Some hold fast to their versions and insists against their better judgement that Jesus did indeed ride a bike to temple.
Their wrong, but you can’t tell them that.
Is that in the Bible? No, but if I were to insert that into a bible and print out 10,000 copies of it and drop them in the middle of a jungle and those bibles were used to convert the natives there and they came to Christ by the use of that bible version, then they would believe that Jesus rode a bike to temple.
Why? Because it’s “in” what they perceive to be “the bible”.
What happens when they meet the real world?
They get shocked to find out that Jesus didn’t ride a bike to temple. So, what do they do? They then begin to question the whole faith about Jesus. What else isnt true?
Then they find out that there “is” a true Bible and that it resembles their bible, except for that one part.
Some leave the faith, never trusting books again.
Some remain in the faith and grow stronger putting their pride and fear to the side and holding on The Word brought to them by their false version of the bible.
Some hold fast to their versions and insists against their better judgement that Jesus did indeed ride a bike to temple.
Their wrong, but you can’t tell them that.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
My understanding, and I may well be in error, is that sola scriptura concludes that yes, Scripture is sufficient for understanding for salvation.
Paraphrased, yes, there is more that can be learned from other sources (with obvious qualifications), but if Scripture was all you had, you could learn enough to know what it was that you needed for salvation. Naturally, as Scripture does talk about the Holy Spirit, you would turn to Him.
If you were on a desert island, by yourself, and all you had was a copy of the Bible, Catholic or Protestant, and naturally a reputable version as discussed here: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
and had a genuine desire to seek the truth, then Scripture would provide all that you needed to know for salvation.
I think that sums up my understanding, and belief.
2
2ndGen
Guest
I’m curious, what do you think is Satan’s goal?
WHERE DO I START? THE EASY ANSWER IS THAT HIS GOAL IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHATEVER GOD WANTS FOR US.
Is it to turn people from God generally, and Jesus specifically, or to turn them from the Catholic Church?
I THINK HE WOULD WANT THEM TO TURN FROM ALL CHRISTIAN CHURCHES THAT TRULY TAUGHT HIS WORD, NOT JUST CATHOLICS.
If people place their faith entirely in Jesus Christ, if they submit themselves entirely to God’s will, trusting in Him completely, believing that their salvation is by grace through faith, are they being misled by Satan?
THAT DEPENDS, COMPLETE FAITH IN CHRIST DOESN’T HELP ONE IF THEY ALSO TRUST THE WORKS OF SATAN. AND THAT CAN HAPPEN. HOW MANY OF THOSE THAT CALL THEMSELVES “CHRISTIANS” YET ARE PICKETING IRAQI WAR VETERANS’ FUNERALS WITH ABOMINABLE SLOGANS BELEIVE THAT THEY TRULY TRUST GOD?
THE CRUSADERS AND THE MUSLIMS WHO KILL IN GOD’S NAME BECAUSE “GOD WILLS IT”, THEY BELIEVE THAT THEIR DOING GOD’S WORD AND WILL. BUT THEY ARE WRONG. I CANNOT JUDGE ANOTHER’S PERCEPTION OR THE ACCURACY OF THEIR FATH.
Yes, there are people posing as Christians who are wolves in sheep’s clothing, there are evangelical and pentecostal churches with theologies that just astound and dismay me, but strangely, they are using exactly the same texts as you and I, both Catholic and Protestant, to derive their doctrines. This does not indicate that the Bible versions are in error, nor does the existence of Bible versions prove anything in and of itself.
AGREED, BUT I PREFER TO USE ONE VERSION…THE UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN VERSION. I WON’T USE VERSIONS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE APPEASEMENT OF ANY ONE PARTICULAR SECT (KING JAMES FOR ANTI-CATHOLICS, NEW WORLD FOR JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, NIV FOR NON-DENOMINATIONALISTS, ETC…). BESIDES, IT’S ALWAYS BEST TO START OFF ON THE SAME PAGE IN A DISCUSSION.
TO BORROW A PHRASE FROM THE MUSLIMS WITH A COUPLE OF WORD SUBSTITUTIONS…“THERE IS NO BIBLE BUT THE HOLY BIBLE.”
Are you aware that the Catholic Church approves of many different Bible versions, not just one as you seem to suggest?
AND WHICH EVER ONES THEY APPROVE OF, I TRUST. WHY? BECAUSE THEY CANONIZED IT, SO THEY’D KNOW BEST WHICH ARE HE MOST AUTHENTIC TRANSLATIONS.
Do you understand the reason for the different versions?
YES. YET AND STILL, I CAN STILL CHOOSE A VERSION THAT WASN’T CREATED BY A FAULTY SOURCE (SUCH AS KING JAMES) OR FOR A SPECIFIC REASON (SUCH AS THE NWT, NIV, ETC…).
WHY DOES ONE NEED ALTERNATIVE VERSIONS? ALL WE NEED IS THE HOLY BIBLE. EASE OF READING, LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS, LITERAL TRANSLATIONS, THAT’S ALL GOOD…PROVIDED THAT THE BIBLE THEIR BASED ON IS THE ONE TRUE BIBLE.
ANYTHING ELSE IS A TRANSLATION OF A TRANSLATION F A TRANSLATION…
If you haven’t already done so, you may care to read further here:
catholic.com/library/Bibl…ions_Guide.asp
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
This sounds like a recitation of the practices of the Catholic Church, and the way they develop doctrine.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Pardon my butting in, but I concur that scripture is all you need.
So if that very same Bible states that we are to listen to those that God sent to teach us, then that has to be accepted as well (an issue that wouldn’t affect the stranded islander and wouldn’t need to be applied to him because he wouldn’t have alternative sources of information contradicting the one Bible that he has).
2
2ndGen
Guest
Well, let’s throw away everything The Church has contributed to Christianity…you can begin with your bible for it’s based on ours.
Then continue from there (the revelation of doctrine, etc…).
The Church is either wrong or right.
Period.
There is no gray.
God chose fallible men to discern His inerrant Word. I believe that He gave those men the grace of being protected from their own pride and misjudgments…this would’ve not defamed them, but more importantly, it would’ve misled those who trust Him.
Pax.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
I apologise if my written English fails to convey what it is that I mean or intend, but why do you read into my words things not said?
I did not say, nor imply, that the Apostles were only needed to jumpstart the faith.
How did you read that into what I said?
The context, which I thought I had made clear, was that disciples were needed to communicate the Gospel orally, because there was no other way at the time.
I also said that they were needed for interpretation.
Sorry, but I am having difficulty communicating.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
You took the bait.
That was a throwaway line to try to get you to acknowledge that debating from generalizations and hypotheses is of little value, because it simply provokes more of the same, which it did in this instance.
- Status