second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Kliska]

That is right .We are His temple,even his monstrance (early father said that). Yes, the church whose foundation is twelve apostles(Revelations), who gave us writings to carry on, to guide the future sheep and their pastors. Jesus resides in the Body, the ecclesia ,the church. It does not diminish His written word. it is wrong to separate Jesus from his Word and say it is “inanimate”.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Is the Bible = to the Word (Logos) of God, or is it a subset?

In other words, are ALL of Jesus’ teachings enscripturated?

 

[Nicea325]

That is right .We are His temple,even his monstrance (early father said that). Yes, the church whose foundation is twelve apostles(Revelations), who gave us writings to carry on, to guide the future sheep and their pastors. Jesus resides in the Body, the ecclesia ,the church. It does not diminish His written word. it is wrong to separate Jesus from his Word and say it is “inanimate”.

And it is also wrong to separate His Word from His Church.And where does God teach His word is binded to written words alone? You still have not answered my question to you.

Where does Jesus teach written words alone is the final authority?

 

[pocohombre]

And again…show me one verse where Jesus teaches written scripture-alone is the final authority?

BTW: Did Scripture all on its own determine its authority or did an external entity determine?

Final authority .? How about correct authority ? For instance the church is the pillar of truth , and does not say she is the pillar of authority, yet… She has Godly authority only to the degree that she is correct, that she is acting in truth. I don’t want final authority .I would prefer to have correct ,Godly authority. Those weilding authority given by God will be judged by how they carried out His instructions, by how faithful they were to his Word, written or otherwise. I believe for the most of her history the CC has tried to do so.

 

[Nicea325]

Final authority .? How about correct authority ? For instance the church is the pillar of truth , and does not say she is the pillar of authority, yet… She has Godly authority only to the degree that she is correct, that she is acting in truth. I don’t want final authority .I would prefer to have correct ,Godly authority. Those weilding authority given by God will be judged by how they carried out His instructions, by how faithful they were to his Word, written or otherwise. I believe for the most of her history the CC has tried to do so.

No offense,but you are side-stepping. And who determined it was correct? Did all the authors of the Bible say:

Just let everyone know I am writing infallible scripture or the Word of God.

 

[pocohombre]

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Amen.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Amen!

And the Word said:

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Gospel of the Lord.

Thanks be to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[eddie_too]

how does a non-catholic determine the “correct” meanings of sacred scripture?

it would appear each non-catholic retains to him or herself the power to “correctly” understand sacred scripture.

if this is the case, then there is no way that christians can end up believing the same things.

if christians do not believe the same things, then they have no way of knowing the “correct” teachings of and about Jesus Christ.

if there is no way to know the “correct” teachings, then there is no way to know Jesus Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

That is right .We are His temple,even his monstrance (early father said that). Yes, the church whose foundation is twelve apostles(Revelations), who gave us writings to carry on, to guide the future sheep and their pastors. Jesus resides in the Body, the ecclesia ,the church. It does not diminish His written word. it is wrong to separate Jesus from his Word and say it is “inanimate”.

And it is wrong to separate the Written Word from the Oral Word.
Just as it is wrong to assume that His Word was contained ONLY in written form.

In fact, it is un-biblical to do so.

 

[PJM]

=Protestor;11510359]May you bless God
Your point "one church[Catholic church]
Mt.10:1-8 This passage is not even about the church. This passage would not even be about one church. I could even argue that the twelve were only given these gifts for this time that they were sent out

My friend your opinion of your self knowledge is amazing

Learn as God intends to take the bible as a whole set of related instructions. NONE which contradict another.

Matthew 4:4 “Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”

Taking Mt. 1-10 by itself is sufficient; BUT add these to it:
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20 where Christ [1] sends the Apostles out “AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME;So TOO I NOW SEND YOU” & [2] Then Gives HIMSELF personally as the WARRANTY of their teaching ONLY the Truth of Faith and Morals.
Then READ carefully Mark 16:14-15 & mt. 28: 18-20 and see who Christ COMMANDS teach the entire world what HE CHRIST taught to them

Verdict, these verses do not come close to making your point
Mt16:18-19 Peter definitely given keys no problem, the rest of the disciples are given authority, and/or power I do not know what this would fall under, to bind and loose

FYI: These terms at that time and to these people dealt with UNLIMITED and UNRESTRICTED Powers of Governance. Major cites at that time; Jerusalem included; were actually “WALLED IN” with gates which did have Key’s and locks. It was a normal practice for the King or ruler of that city to appoint one man to GOVERN in his name and with His Authority; answerable ONLY to the KING, on a day to day basis, leaving the King free for other less routine task. *

Mt. 18:18 has Christ giving the same BUT THROUGH PETER authority to ALL of the Apostles.

NOTE in Mt. 10: that Christ specifies that they go ONLY to the Jews; then in Mk.16 and Mt. 28 this is expanded “TO THE ENTIRE WORLD” requiring SUCCESSION.
.

Jn.17:14-20 We already talked about this one. He asks that all disciples of the apostles be given the same things he asked the father for the apostles in the verses prior
Verdict, does not come close to proving your point

Jn. 17:6 “] I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word”
Jn.17:Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

NOW FRIEND READ Jn.20: 19-23 and see how they tie-togeather:thumbsup:

Jn.20:21-23 Disciples were truly made apostles this day with the baptism of the spirit. They were given the holy spirit for guidance so that when they forgave it was forgiven and when they condemned it was condemned.
Verdict, Good for them.{?QUOTE]

ONLY GOD can cause this Power Transfer and the Apostles are to whom He is Speaking directly.

NO WHERE DID I IMPLY that the Apostles are to “make other apostles”; NO! They are to MAKE CATHOLICS; TEACH CHRIST FAITH through His one Church.

Mt.28:19-20 " Going therefore, teach ye all nations

; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world".

Eph.4:4-8 Finally you quoted something that looks like your point.

THIS MUST BE VIEWED AS FOLLOWING HIS OWN OT TRADITIONS:
ONE GOD
ONE SET OF FAITH BELIEFS
ONE CHOSEN PEOPLE [NOW ONE CHURCH]

AND ALSO IN THE SAME VEIN: ONE MAN CHOSEN AND PUT IN CHARGE!
Abram, Moses, the Judges, Kings like David, the Prophets leading up to John the Baptist; then Christ Himself who CHOOSES PETER to Govern His new One God; One Faith on ONLY one Church..

There is one body remember the one with many parts that do not look the same or have the same function. One spirit I think we will all agree on this one. One hope the hope of (for lack of space) God’s covenant being full filed. One Lord easy God. One faith this is where the rubber meets the road. I do not want to straight rip Gills in here with a sprinkle of Barnes Notes as well. This does not necessarily mean one set of doctrines

You GOTTA be kidding? In the OT did God permit more than ONE FAITH? Absolutely NOT. So WHY would God tolerate in now?

“One FAITH” does not according to you mean ONE SET OF BELIEFS? Where is TAHT is the bible?

WOW! And you choose to call yourself a Catholic.

May God Bless and enlighten you my friend!

One baptism the baptism of the spirit great. One God no disagreement. We are all given grace accordingly but not the exact same.
Verdict, could make your point but needs help. This verse does not make your point directly.

God’s singular truth, maybe is that you do not know how to put together verses to prove a point, or you just think no one will read them. If this was to blunt or crass please tell me I can tone it back for you. I do think you are a big boy though and need to know how people like me take your points. I really should tone it back for the other people reading and not commenting.*

 

[daler]

Mt.28:19-20 " Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world".

PJM,
. What is your understanding of the phrase: “even to the consummation of the world”?

. I have heard that the word “aeon” means “age”. That is, “even to the consummation of the age”.

. A lot of people think the world is going to end, where as this refers to the end of an age, or epoch, a cycle of time, or the conclusion of a dispensation…

.

 

[PJM]

=daler;11511518]PJM,
. What is your understanding of the phrase: “even to the consummation of the world”?

. I have heard that the word “aeon” means “age”. That is, “even to the consummation of the age”.

. A lot of people think the world is going to end, where as this refers to the end of an age, or epoch, a cycle of time, or the conclusion of a dispensation…

.

The terms as used here mean the same thing. Util Christ comes again; The Second Coming.

The lesson is that we [Christ CC] will not be abandoned by God is affirmed in Matthew 16: 18, and John 17: 19.

Thanks for asking,

God Bless you,
patrick

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree with the first bit; that translation is a bit off. He does say to agree in prayer, but not that the people have to be side by side praying “off” one another, and where two or more being gathered doesn’t necessarily mean they are praying, but are gathered in His name. However, I DO definitely agree on the “intent” of the person and where their heart is.

What would be the point of a gathering of believers, if not to pray to the One in whom they believe?

It would be a very poor gathering indeed, if believers chose instead to speak about Him, but without inviting Hm into their midst by means of prayer.

 

[Protestor]

Learn as God intends to take the bible as a whole set of related instructions. None which contradict another.

How did I contradict myself?or How did I make scripture contradict itself? I am seriously open to your point. So my opinion is you should actually make your point.

Matthew 4:4 “Who answered and said: It is written, not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”

What is this here for?

Taking Mt. 1-10 by itself is sufficient; but add these to it:
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20 where Christ [1] sends the Apostles out “as the father has sent me;so too I now send you” & [2] Then gives himself personally as the warranty of their teaching only the truth of faith and morals.
Then read carefully Mark 16:14-15 & mt. 28: 18-20 and see who Christ commands teach the entire world what he Christ taught to them

Your first passage you referenced is missing the chapter so I do not know what to tell you.

Mt16:18-19 I still do not know how this applies. Please check these verses before you put them on here.

Jn. 17:14-20 This is a convo between Jesus and God. I actually think this is talking in a form of the past tense and should read “I also sent them” You may think I am being knit picky but there is a big difference between “send you” and “sent them” one is a command going into the future the other is in the third person in the past. [2] you are quoting the wrong verse

Mk.16:14,15 Carefully read and you still have not said what this is supposed to explain. I’m confused what does the great commission have to do with “one church” he appeared to the 11 and said it to them

Mt28:18 again I think you should check your translation it keeps saying them in mine. I do not think you are actually reading this. Jesus literally says he all authority and he will always be with them. Not hey God just gave me all authority now I am going to give it to you.

FYI: These terms at that time and to these people dealt with unlimited and unrestricted powers of governance. Major cites at that time; Jerusalem included; were actually “walled in” with gates which did have key’s and locks. It was a normal practice for the King or ruler of that city to appoint one man to govern in his name and with His authority; answerable only to the king, on a day to day basis, leaving the king free for other less routine task. **
I do not get your point. You still have yet to make any such connections. Just because a bunch of humans did something some way, does this mean that God has to also do it this way? Quick answer no
PJM;11511106:

Mt. 18:18 has Christ giving the same but through Peter authority to all of the apostles.

I think that you are confusing Peter asking a question in v21 with the whole passage being addressed only to him. Your interpretation is a conclusion that is completely forced and being read into the passage. The passage says nothing like what you are saying

NOTE in Mt. 10: that Christ specifies that they go only to the Jews; then in Mk.16 and Mt. 28 this is expanded “to the entire world” requiring succession.

I think you are confused requiring succession is a mistake. We have seen in the Jews from when they went away from a theocracy how it worked out for them. I doubt that God would let us do this again. Beyond that this is nowhere in the text. It would make sense for God to explicitly state it and because he did not move the writer to do so makes it at least seem unlikely that a succession is what he wanted.
.

Jn. 17:6 “] I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word”
Jn.17:Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

Now friend read Jn.20: 19-23 and see how they tie-togeather:thumbsup:

You are not making a point here you are just saying verses go together. The verses you used before fall short again, I am overcome with surprise.

Only God can cause this power transfer and the apostles are to whom he is speaking directly.

No where did I imply that the Apostles are to “make other apostles”; No! They are to make catholics; teach christ faith through His one Church.

Trade one bad implication for another. Do you even know what catholic means? I am saying this because what you are saying is that “they are to make universals” which makes no sense. They were “to make disciples” plain and simple. They were not to make catholics.

Mt.28:19-20 " Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world".

Great baptize and teach. You are making a ton of progress here.

 

[Protestor]

PJM couldn’t fit it all in one

On the topic of Eph 4 I was trying to extend you an olive branch. One faith and one set of faith beliefs are not equivalent. You are not entitled to adding whatever you want into the bible so that it fits your interpretation. I am not sure what you think. Do you think that by reciting the "one God, one set of beliefs, one chuch, one ruler " mantra that it will convince me of your point. The Jews were actually allowed a lot of wiggle room I mean do you not remember that the sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. Are you prepared to tell me that some of them are not in paradise. God tolerates a lot from us.

I am a part of the universal faith. I am going to heaven. So I must be catholic right?

Since you seem incapable of making a point that has any biblical proof I think I will message SteveVH. He actually knows how to make a point, and since he is catholic maybe he can understand what you are saying

 

[Protestor]

I understand,but I am not going down the long drawn out posts of providing proof. Been there to many times. Others I am sure will provide you what you are looking for.

Then do not waste my time and yours.

 

[PRmerger]

One faith and one set of faith beliefs are not equivalent.

Of course it is equivalent.

One faith cannot say, “Divorce and re-marriage is adultery for you but not for the Methodists!”

One faith cannot say, “Saturday is the day of worship for you but not for the Baptists!”

One faith cannot say, “Baptism saves you, but not the Church of the Solid Rock!”

No. One faith and one set of essential beliefs (which we know through the CC) are indeed equivalent.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The term for church that is here used in the singular form you are correct, but your bracketed section is not absolutely correct. It is your opinion and also it is why it was not specifically stated in the text. The term church is also described as a body, you might prefer one body, but do not forget that a body has many parts. This is also a likely explanation and it should be given thought. If your opinion is backed up by tradition please quote tradition.

If you are going to argue against protestants try not using the stuff from the 101 course, and make a cogent argument. Not using something that is implied but not backed up.

In the event you have not read it, I’d like to refer you to Dominus Iesus.

In this document you will be able to understand better the Catholic view of Christ, His Church and His Salvific mystery.

I’d like to include a section in this post (But would really recommend reading the document fully):

*17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60 *
*On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63 *
*“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66 *
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

A much better way to understand where we (Catholics) are coming from, is to realize that our Church started in 33AD and that our first Bishop was St. Peter the Apostle. I understand you may have your personal opinion about it, but if you can’t refute our history - it is much better to engage in arguments with this in mind. Since as you present argumentations and interpretations - we will be presenting the same but with documentation from the Apostles and those they taught and have been serving the Church since then.

Peace,

 

[Croc]

Q1. Yes
YES: During the Old Testament, the covenant was written on tablets of stone and it required rituals and annual sacrifices for cleansing of sins.
Jesus changed the old Order, and brought a New Covenant with His blood that is written in the hearts of men. He started a new system.

Q2. Jesus Himself did not start a Church per se. Even after his ascension, the apostles used to stay in one house and share food together

For your other 2 Questions

1. Yes (spiritual multiplication)
2. Yes (as the apostles died, Christ gives spiritual gifts: Eph:4:11: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
   Eph:4:12: For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

 

[PRmerger]

Q2. Jesus Himself did not start a Church per se. Even after his ascension, the apostles used to stay in one house and share food together

Of course Jesus did.

He certainly did not start the Bible.