Seventh Day Adventists

[Richard_Kastner]

57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. ." This is the EIGHT reference to Jesus as food. While we are promised eternal life through Christ, we must believe what He has just said. If, like the Jews in these verses, we harden our hearts so that they will not see and will not hear – we will not live, and we have Christ’s word on that.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." ." This is the NINTH reference to Jesus being food. He is announcing to all that He came from heaven and those who eat of His Flesh will live while those who ate the manna have all died.

Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” ." The Jews have effectively called Him crazy, rejected His message, and questioned the sanity of anyone who does accept it. Their mind is made up and they have rejected the message of Christ.

Because they thought He was talking of cannabalism.

61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? .” But, the Jews who followed Him to Capernaum were not the only ones with belief issues. Here we can only imagine the shock of His Apostles when they heard Jesus utter these words.

This is pure speculation on your part scripture gives us no indication of this. Quite the contrary in v. 68 Peter says “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. .”

63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. ." Here we have the part you have been referencing – but, look where it falls. After all Jesus’s statements about eating His Flesh. Notice, He does not back down even with stunned look on the faces of His Apostles. There is not statement like, “That statement was for those guys, but, let me tell you what it is really like…!” Nope! That never happened – the Apostles are required – just like us – to actually believe in the words of Christ AND THEN follow them as commanded.

Well, again there is no indication that there where stunned looks on the apostles faces, but you are right He does expect us to follow His WORDS, because they are Spirit and life. Also Jn4:23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
1Cor.2:12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Jn17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Jn.14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. ." Here is the big exodus away from Christ BECAUSE they have rejected His doctrine – NOT because they have mis-understood. That is really the story there. But, it does have an encouraging ending – brought to us by the Leader of the Apostles – the one Christ build His Church on: Peter!

Here’s what my commentary says on “hear it” in v. 60
hear it. The Greek verb here employed, akouō, may mean either “to listen to” or “to obey” (much in the same sense as the Heb. shema‘; see on Matt. 7:24). Also autou may be translated either “it,” referring to the statement Jesus had just made, or “him,” pointing back to Jesus Himself. Thus the disgruntled disciples’ question may be understood either as, “Who can listen to it [or, to Him]?” or “Who can obey it [or, Him]?” Refusing to realize the spiritual truth of Jesus’ words, and insisting on only their literal meaning, they protested the utter impossibility of eating His flesh or drinking His blood. To their unwilling minds Jesus’ words were indeed “an hard saying.” In other words they misunderstood Him. Thought He was talking of cannabalism and refused to walk with Him.

67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. .” Had the Jews demonstrated faith in Christ because of the many signs that He provided that would have been one thing – but, they refused to acknowledge all previous sings – even from as recent as yesterday – and demand still more…

I don’t think there is any indication that they refused to aknowledge Jesus’ signs. Remember that is the reason they were there in the first place. They wanted some more miraculous bread. But the thing you seem to miss with this v. is what Peter says. He confirms the spiritual aspect of what Jesus says in v. 63 “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. .”

70
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
71 ." He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. ." So here we have Peter speaking for the all but Judas who has suddenly rejected Jesus because of doctrine. This section in John is a watershed event in the life of Christ and in the lives of all who claim to be following Him.

Well Judas actually had not yet betrayed Jesus. As far as a “watershed event”, I think this was a major teaching moment, but the cross and resurrection far outshine this as what you would call a “watershed event”

 

[phummel]

My Brother in Christ em42:

I admire and respect you for your belief and faith and I agree with you on many of your points, but did not Jesus say that He came to fulfill the Law and did fulfill it, and that He gave us a new law?

Do not, we “Gentiles” have a new covenant with Him? The Jews that rejected Him are “cursed under the Law” and thus will be judged by the Law. Therefore I believe, by Jesus words, that you who live by the old Law, will also be judged by it.

God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

P.S. as an aside: the Bible that you so carefully use was given you by the Catholic Church.

Hello,

Just butting in a bit. We do have a new covenant which is based on love. Love before law. If we are just trying to adhere to the exact letter of the law without love in our hearts, we are going to miss the point as the Jews did. We don’t want to be good tithe-paying Sabbath-keeping Jews and crucify our savior.

If we look at the words of Jesus, fulfilling the law does not mean doing away with it. Rather, He gives it a fuller expression which is based on love:
Matthew 5:17-30 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Please read Matthew 5 - Jesus makes the commandments fuller - lust=adultry, hatred=murder, etc.

Perhaps we are in agreement - the old law (ten commandments) were part of the old covenant. I still see them as binding, but perhaps a bit incomplete without Jesus getting us to realize we need love. They should be written in the tablets of our hearts and not on stone. They are really just a bear minimum expression of what God expects of us. He really wants us to love Him with all of our heart, mind, and soul and to love each other.

1 John 5:3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome

blessings,
paul

 

[ern42]

greggy - even though you weren’t able to answer my question of Sabbath vs Sunday, because the fact is that Sabbath has never been changed to Sunday has God Holy Day of worship. I’m going to answer your question…
The Bible [scripture] is completely inspired by he Holy Spirit! Read it for yourself…

What does the Bible claim about itself?
The Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16. “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. “The scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35.

Answer: It claims to be inspired. It was written by men who were guided by the Holy Ghost. It cannot be broken or proved untrue. Thus it’s not my interpretation of the scripture, it’s my willingness to hear the voice of the Lord [Holy Spirit] and to follow what has already been inspired, which is his Words. If I do excactly what the Bible tells me, their can be NO WAY that I am not following God’s will, NONE. I hope this makes sense to you, and you can understand me.

And I would like to add another statement that might help you understand this very important point.

Have you asked yourself? What evidence of Bible inspiration is found in the lives of people?

The Bible says, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17.

Answer: The changed lives of those who follow Jesus and obey Scripture constitute the most heartwarming proof of Bible inspiration. The drunkard becomes sober; the immoral, pure; the addicted, free; the profane, reverent; the fearful, courageous; and the rude, kind.

So I hope you are satisfied. I don’t like to insist to much. The message has been sent, I’ve done what God expects of me. I hope you and the others can read for yourself! But remember, before you read anything, kneel down in private, ask God with your mind, heart & soul, to help you truely understand his loving words. I still strongly feel that you should NEVER take any man words to heart, if that man doesn’t speak in accourdance with the ONLY INSPIERED SOURCE… the BIBLE! That includes me! ONLY LISTEN TO GOD! That is what I try to do every single day. Look for his guidedance through scripture.

Have a blessed day, I’m off to work.

 

[ern42]

Paul,
Read the previous quote I wrote concerning the jews laws and Gods law.

Have a great day…Ern.

 

[greggy53]

greggy - even though you weren’t able to answer my question of Sabbath vs Sunday, because the fact is that Sabbath has never been changed to Sunday has God Holy Day of worship. I’m going to answer your question…
The Bible [scripture] is completely inspired by he Holy Spirit! Read it for yourself…
What does the Bible claim about itself?
The Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16. “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. “The scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35.
Answer: It claims to be inspired. It was written by men who were guided by the Holy Ghost. It cannot be broken or proved untrue. Thus it’s not my interpretation of the scripture, it’s my willingness to hear the voice of the Lord [Holy Spirit] and to follow what has already been inspired, which is his Words. If I do excactly what the Bible tells me, their can be NO WAY that I am not following God’s will, NONE. I hope this makes sense to you, and you can understand me…

Ern42: You haven’t answered my question on whether your interpretations of the Bible are infallible either, and that’s OK. Obviously you are not infallible when you interpret the scriptures, nor am I. This is important I think to any discussion on the Bible because we all bring that element of human error into the mix. The scriptures as the divinely inspirited word of God are without error, but we humans are full of it . How then could God give his inspired and perfect word to creatures who are imperfect and sinful, and expect them to receive this word the way he intended it?
The answer is that he gave the scriptures to His church. The holy Spirit speaks through Gods Church and gives to it the correct interpretation . Remember Jesus described his relationship to the Church as that of a bride and bridegroom . A man and wife become one. The Church and Christ are one. God gave the scriptures to the Church so that there would be no confusion, no error in it’s meaning.
The remaining question then is which Church is one with Christ? That you should study carefully. I believe that Church is the Catholic Church mainly because they are the only Church on this planet that can prove it descended from the Apostles. They claim that apostolic authority and it can be verified historically , as well a biblically. You may argue they may not deserve it, have sinned, but once you study the history of the Christian faith in an unbiased manner you will come to the conclusion that that succession and authority that Christ bestowed on His church belongs to the Catholic Church.
What I would do if I were you is some earnest research. Don’t go to a Catholic source, or an SDA source. Go to an unbiased secular source of a historical nature and research the history of Christianity.
For instance if you Google “The council of Rome” and go to the on-line Wikipedia encyclopedia you will see the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
Check it out and you will see that the scriptures were translated and assembled into their present day form way back in 380 AD by the Catholic Church.
Next question for you: Why would God entrust his Holy scriptures to an evil entity like you claim the Catholic Church was/is?

 

[happilycatholic]

ern:

You have yet to answer my posts, specifically #'s 216 and 224.

These are serious questions that I am *very *interested in getting answered by any SDAist who wishes to do so, but particularly by you.

You have slinged accusation after accusation at the catholic Church with absolutely nothing to back it up except a few verses of Scripture which are your opinion because you’ve already told us no one has the power to interpret Scripture infallibly, least of all (for some odd reason), the pope. I’m not sure why God would single him out, but okay.

I am particularly interested in two of my questions:

Can you show us proof that Christians were celebrating the Eucharist on Saturday?

When was the Sabbath changed from what was given to the Isrealites by God to what it is now practiced by certain seventh-day Christians?

I’ve not insulted you nor have I called you a name, nor have I made the accusations about your faith and beliefs as you have mine. I would appreciate if you would do me a kindness and answer my questions to the best of your ability with the knowledge you have of your faith.

Maybe my questions are hard because I’m not arguing with you about my faith, I’m trying to figure out yours and your reasons for choosing to follow SDA fundementals. I’m not trying to convert you or show you that the catholic Church is what it is, I’m trying to figure out why you think the SDA church has it “right”. I truly believe you and I are the same Christians. I don’t know or particularly care whether you do. I’m not questioning your *faith. *Obviously you are strong in faith. I’m not questioning your Christianity or your relationship with God. I have been trying to find these answers for about 2 years now. Every time I ask these particular questions, I get completely ignored.

You have yet to explain to me the basic reasons why you worship on Saturday. You have yet to tell me why you don’t worship on Sunday. I know you say it’s in Scripture and that’s what I’m asking for.

You keep accusing the Church of changing the Sabbath when the Church did no such thing. SDAs and other sabbath-keeping Christians changed the Sabbath. The Jews are still going about their business on Sabbath just like they’ve always done. They are not claiming the Church has changed anything.

The Sabbath is still the Sabbath.

Blessings,

HC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

I have three comments:

Because they thought He was talking of cannabalism. I have enumerated the times Christ addressed Himself as Food. There is not question - at least in the teaching of the Chruch that Christ founded on Peter - that Chrst meant for us to eat (the Greek is to grind and chew) His Flesh. Yes, indeed, this was a ‘stumbling block’ - but, notice the WORDS you keep on coming back to - well, Richard, those WORDS are to eat. This is not th theory of eating or the philosophy of eating - but actual eating. And these are the WORDS Christ has given to us. You are quite correct in saying we are to BELIEVE THESE WORDS - and, Richard, these WORDS tell us to eat.

This is pure speculation on your part scripture gives us no indication of this. Quite the contrary in v. 68 Peter says “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. .” ** Caught me red handed! Guilty of speculating! I think the Apostles were an amazed group when they heard Christ say this. If you want to think they took it all in without batting an eye-lash, fine … But, you know, somehow, prior to this event we have Judas who we did not know much about… suddenly surrender to the Devil! Now, maybe it was only Judas who was amazed… then quit believing in Christ. But, those are just my thoughts on the matter. **

I don’t think there is any indication that they refused to aknowledge Jesus’ signs. Remember that is the reason they were there in the first place. They wanted some more miraculous bread. But the thing you seem to miss with this v. is what Peter says. He confirms the spiritual aspect of what Jesus says in v. 63 “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. .” **In my opinion they refused to acknowledge the previous signs because they refused to believe the WORDS that He has just given them. If someone can feed 5,000 people by muliplying loaves and fishes, surely He can do WHATEVER ELSE HE SAYS . Walking away is a rejection of Christ - they no longer follwed Him. **

Well Judas actually had not yet betrayed Jesus. As far as a “watershed event”, I think this was a major teaching moment, but the cross and resurrection far outshine this as what you would call a “watershed event” **I won’t quibble over what is a watershed event. To my mind the Resurrection is the ultimte watershed event for all of humanity. My comment was simply addressing that before Chrsit gave the Eucharistic Discourse there were 12 Followers - and afterwards there were 11. Something pretty major happened. **

In the last analysis, we either believe the WORDS and DEEDS of Christ - or, we don’t. I have honestly done all I can do.

God bless

 

[happilycatholic]

Hi, Richard,

I have three comments:

In the last analysis, we either believe the WORDS and DEEDS of Christ - or, we don’t. I have honestly done all I can do.

God bless

My question is this:

If Christ meant this as a symbol, why did He make them eat? It was eat the Bread or leave, period. Why would Christ do that? He only gave them two choices. If they didn’t physically eat the bread they were unbelievers.

What does this say for us today?

EAT THE BREAD.

sorry.

Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

What does the Bible claim about itself?

"Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21.

ern, I picked this out because this explains what I meant when I said Protestants tend to believe what they want, when they want.

This verse vertually paves the way for Tradition and validates it by stating that it is divinely inspired and should be taken as such. And yet, you and other non-catholics tend to bend Scripture in contridiction of this verse.

The Holy Spirit has been using men through the ages to do His will. Why would you think that would end when Christ was crucified? When the Gospels were written and all was said and done, where does it say that God took back this statement? Or that God stopped giving His Holy Church the authority of Holy men?

In fact, Christ gave Peter that very authority. Where in Scripture does it state that Christ ever intended for that to stop at some specific point in time, like at Peter’s death? Where does Christ say He was leaving His Church to the Bible?

The fact of the matter is, the Scriptures have no authority. The authority was clearly given to a man named Peter, not a Bible.

Blessings,

HC

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Ern42: You haven’t answered my question on whether your interpretations of the Bible are infallible either, and that’s OK. Obviously you are not infallible when you interpret the scriptures, nor am I. This is important I think to any discussion on the Bible because we all bring that element of human error into the mix. The scriptures as the divinely inspirited word of God are without error, but we humans are full of it . How then could God give his inspired and perfect word to creatures who are imperfect and sinful, and expect them to receive this word the way he intended it?
The answer is that he gave the scriptures to His church. **The holy Spirit speaks through Gods Church and gives to it the correct interpretation . **Remember Jesus described his relationship to the Church as that of a bride and bridegroom . A man and wife become one. The Church and Christ are one. God gave the scriptures to the Church so that there would be no confusion, no error in it’s meaning.
**The remaining question then is which Church is one with Christ? ** That you should study carefully. I believe that Church is the Catholic Church mainly because they are the only Church on this planet that can prove it descended from the Apostles. They claim that apostolic authority and it can be verified historically , as well a biblically. You may argue they may not deserve it, have sinned, but once you study the history of the Christian faith in an unbiased manner you will come to the conclusion that that succession and authority that Christ bestowed on His church belongs to the Catholic Church.
What I would do if I were you is some earnest research. Don’t go to a Catholic source, or an SDA source. Go to an unbiased secular source of a historical nature and research the history of Christianity.
For instance if you Google “The council of Rome” and go to the on-line Wikipedia encyclopedia you will see the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
Check it out and you will see that the scriptures were translated and assembled into their present day form way back in 380 AD by the Catholic Church.
Next question for you: Why would God entrust his Holy scriptures to an evil entity like you claim the Catholic Church was/is?

Hello greggy53 I’m not Em 42 , but I would like to take a crack at your post. Please note the two sentences that I have emboldened. Apparently you think that God has restricted Himself to man made denominational boundaries and you think that He is a Catholic and unless you listen to what the magisterium says, whom I think you are saying are the only ones that can recieve the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Then you cannot interpret the bible correctly or receive the teachings that only they have received and are destined to get it wrong and will be damned. This is an extremely arrogant veiw and completely unfounded in scripture.

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

According to the bible God gives inspiration to individuals and that inspiration is contained in His WORD.

1Cor.12:12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14For the body is not one member, but many.
Rom12:7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
Qcts:1034Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

God’s people are in all churches and are manifest by the baptism (anointing) of the Holy Spirit.

1Jn2:24… ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Again God’s church is not restricted to denominational boundaries. His people are in all churches. There are two caracteristics for God’s church.

Rev:12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
There are also two characteristics for saints and one of them is certainly not that they be dead.
Rev.14:12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
The characteristics of God’s church and His saints are the same. That they keep the ten commandments and the faith of Jesus Christ.

 

[happilycatholic]

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Okay, stay with me here…unless you believe in your heart that the Scriptures themselves are capable of the things claimed here, then you must believe that a human being must first pick up said Bible, interpret it and then lead people to God using the Scriptures for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.

Secondly, no where in Scripture, here or anywhere else, does it define itself as an authority. There are authorities within the Scriptures, but the Scriptures themselves are not authoritative. Otherwise, we were completely without authority for about 100 or so years until the NT was recorded and at least a few hundred more years before the Scriptures were widely distributed.

So there must be sole leadership in order to maintain the infallible interpretation intended by the Holy Spirit. If we have several different interpretations being promulgated everywhere, then we’ve got error as well. Mere statistics will prove that.

For me, that would be the Church. For you, it is either you/yourself or your pastor/Church. And if you don’t believe that one or the other or both has infallibilty, then you are opening yourself up to a great debate.

Either way, we must have the Scripture presented to us. We do not attain it by osmosis or magic.

You trust yourself and/or your pastor. I trust my Church first, then myself. I have no fear of surrender to my Church because it is the Holy Spirit that guides it.

Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

Because they thought He was talking of cannabalism.

Okay, you can’t have it both ways. Either they thought Christ was asking them to eat His flesh and the believers stayed and did just what Christ asked and we’ve continued to do so for 2000 years, or you believe Christ was asking them to do something symbolic and that was to eat bread and so the “unbelievers” left for what reason? You stated they left because they thought He asked them to literally eat His flesh.

Which is it? Was it bread or flesh?

The Scripture is written in a way that we cannot discern the difference. We place our faith in Christ through His Church. That is the way Christ meant it. You would have to *trust *Him because you cannot understand it or see it with your eyes. You won’t be able to read it because it is a Mystery of faith.

Stop trying to make sense of it in your human mind and just surrender to it and believe what Christ said. The ones that left certainly believed Christ. Actually, the ones that stayed did too, but they went further and trusted in Him that He was not asking them to do something that was wrong even though everything about it was against their human ability to understand.

This is what’s keeping you for understanding now. You refuse to surrender. In this very instance, you are going on what you have interpreted or what a pastor has told you and not what our Savior clearly said and what His followers clearly knew He meant at the time.

Blessings,

HC

 

[greggy53]

Hello greggy53 I’m not Em 42 , but I would like to take a crack at your post. Please note the two sentences that I have emboldened. Apparently you think that God has restricted Himself to man made denominational boundaries and you think that He is a Catholic and unless you listen to what the magisterium says, whom I think you are saying are the only ones that can recieve the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Then you cannot interpret the bible correctly or receive the teachings that only they have received and are destined to get it wrong and will be damned. This is an extremely arrogant veiw and completely unfounded in scripture…

What I was saying is that the Catholic Church is the only Church that can and does interpret scripture without error by the power of the Holy Spirit. Surely there is truth in the Bible for all who read the scriptures, but it is painfully evident that when individuals, and their churches step outside the guidance of the one true Church that Christ established we end up with confusion which results in 10 thousand plus Protestant churches all disagreeing with each other on what the scriptures say! They all cry out that they have the right answers, but they can’t all be right, and the Holy Spirit is not the author of their confusion. It is self evident then that man in his rebellion against God, and His Church is the culprit. The Church and Christ are one.

I didn’t say anything about anybody being damned.

You have quoted many scriptures to prove your point I guess, but in reality it all boils down to YOUR interpretation versus the Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church whose saints and doctors assembled the scriptures, translated and meditated on their meaning for 2000 years. If it comes down to believing you, and thousands of Catholic saints, and clergy who do you think I’m going to believe?
You and your church do not have the authority to interpret scripture, therefore I consider any interpretation you, or any other “reformer” has for any scripture with great suspicion.

 

[happilycatholic]

What I was saying is that the Catholic Church is the only Church that can and does interpret scripture without error by the power of the Holy Spirit. Surely there is truth in the Bible for all who read the scriptures, but it is painfully evident that when individuals, and their churches step outside the guidance of the one true Church that Christ established we end up with confusion which results in 10 thousand plus Protestant churches all disagreeing with each other on what the scriptures say! They all cry out that they have the right answers, but they can’t all be right, and the Holy Spirit is not the author of their confusion. It is self evident then that man in his rebellion against God, and His Church is the culprit. The Church and Christ are one.

I didn’t say anything about anybody being damned.

You have quoted many scriptures to prove your point I guess, but in reality it all boils down to YOUR interpretation versus the Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church whose saints and doctors assembled the scriptures, translated and meditated on their meaning for 2000 years. If it comes down to believing you, and thousands of Catholic saints, and clergy who do you think I’m going to believe?
You and your church do not have the authority to interpret scripture, therefore I consider any interpretation you, or any other “reformer” has for any scripture with great suspicion.

I think (edit** Richard) is confusing the ability to understand Scripture and be blessed by that and having guaranteed infallibility with respect to interpreting Scripture. I don’t think anyone’s ever claimed that a person can’t interpret Scripture correctly. I think the Holy Spirit offers infallibility to everyone, but promises that authority to only His True Church.

The problem exists where you or I believe we are guaranteed infallibility and will not know when we are wrong because we have cut ourselves off to the possibility of error.

Blessings,

HC

 

[greggy53]

Rev:12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ…

I wonder, why did you include this in your last post to me? What are you trying to say here?..We don’t keep God’s commanments, or his testimony and you do?? If that is what you are implying come out and say it. Don’t be so underhanded about it, it’s very unseemly.

There are also two characteristics for saints and one of them is certainly not that they be dead.
Rev.14:12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
The characteristics of God’s church and His saints are the same. That they keep the ten commandments and the faith of Jesus Christ.

Who said the saints are dead?..Not the Catholic Church. the saints are alive in Heaven with our Lord, and they intercede for us continually. There is nothing here the Church disagrees with. What’s your point?

What I mean is you folks certainly like to throw a lot of scripture around. And that’s OK as long it is germane to what is being discussed. Most of the time though it has been my observation that you guys just throw lots of it out there hoping some of it will stick. There is nothing in any of the scriptures you quoted that the Church doesn’t agree with. It’s like you have memorized a bunch of scriptures and you just spew them out automatically whenever someone pushes one of your buttons.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Okay, stay with me here…

Why would I have a problem staying with you. Do you think that because you are supposedly talking with the inspiration that you recieve from your church that I in my uninlightened way would have a problem keeping up with your profound concepts. I find this not a little bit arrogant and somewhat insulting. Hey, I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we just stick to the topic at hand and forgo the vailed put downs K.

unless you believe in your heart that the Scriptures themselves are capable of the things claimed here, then you must believe that a human being must first pick up said Bible, interpret it and then lead people to God using the Scriptures for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.

Sure a person must actually pick up the bible and read it. But in order for it to be of any benefit to us it must be read with a heart that is open to the power of God in His Spirit.
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Picking up the bible and reading scripture is no guarrantee that we will understand or be able to use those scriptures to bring anyone to God if we ourselves are not at least open to the power of God’s Spirit to work in us (not any church, denomination)
Matt7:4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
When we do that we open ouselves to the baptism (anointing) of the Holy Spirit.
1Jn2:24… ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Secondly, no where in Scripture, here or anywhere else, does it define itself as an authority. There are authorities within the Scriptures, but the Scriptures themselves are not authoritative.

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Unless you think that the inspiration of God does not fall under His authority, you will have to explain what other authority we need.

Otherwise, we were completely without authority for about 100 or so years until the NT was recorded and at least a few hundred more years before the Scriptures were widely distributed.

Ok, I tried but I’m not following. Above you state that scripture is not authoritative, now you seem to be saying that the scriptures of the NT are authoritative, but only the NT. Is this right or am I missing something?

So there must be sole leadership in order to maintain the infallible interpretation intended by the Holy Spirit.

So, you think the Spirit of God is subject to man.

If we have several different interpretations being promulgated everywhere, then we’ve got error as well. Mere statistics will prove that.

Well, Of coarse we do all that proves is that most people are not willing to call Jesus Lord and submit to His Spirit.

For me, that would be the Church. For you, it is either you/yourself or your pastor/Church. And if you don’t believe that one or the other or both has infallibilty, then you are opening yourself up to a great debate.

Well, I appreciate the attempt at telling me what I believe. It’s not your place to tell me who I have as an authoritative figure. My supreme authority is Jesus Christ.

Either way, we must have the Scripture presented to us. We do not attain it by osmosis or magic.

Scripture is presented to us in the bible. We avail ourselves of it by feeding on the word made flesh, by being nourished by the words of Jesus in the old as well as the new testament.

You trust yourself and/or your pastor. I trust my Church first, then myself. I have no fear of surrender to my Church because it is the Holy Spirit that guides it.

Blessings,

HC

Again you trry to tell me what I believe. I trust Jesus and His word.

 

[happilycatholic]

Why would I have a problem staying with you. Do you think that because you are supposedly talking with the inspiration that you recieve from your church that I in my uninlightened way would have a problem keeping up with your profound concepts. I find this not a little bit arrogant and somewhat insulting. Hey, I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we just stick to the topic at hand and forgo the vailed put downs K.

Let me just answer you…

Arrogant? ME ARROGANT? And how exactly do you see yourself?

No, nothing I’ve said has been particularly profound. What I meant was, don’t get upset and spew all the anti-catholic rhetoric you’ve been spewing.

And it’s “veiled”. K?

Look, I’m the least of the least here, but I don’t like it when someone claims arrogance on my part when you’ve been judging an ENTIRE FAITH and saying things like satan is behind the things we believe.

Blessings,

HC

How arrogant is that?

yes, I would very much like to stick to the subject at hand and dispense with the rhetoric if that’s okay. K?

 

[happilycatholic]

Why would I have a problem staying with you. Do you think that because you are supposedly talking with the inspiration that you recieve from your church that I in my uninlightened way would have a problem keeping up with your profound concepts. I find this not a little bit arrogant and somewhat insulting. Hey, I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we just stick to the topic at hand and forgo the vailed put downs K.

Addressed.

Sure a person must actually pick up the bible and read it. But in order for it to be of any benefit to us it must be read with a heart that is open to the power of God in His Spirit.
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Picking up the bible and reading scripture is no guarrantee that we will understand or be able to use those scriptures to bring anyone to God if we ourselves are not at least open to the power of God’s Spirit to work in us (not any church, denomination)
Matt7:4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
When we do that we open ouselves to the baptism (anointing) of the Holy Spirit.
1Jn2:24… ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Unless you think that the inspiration of God does not fall under His authority, you will have to explain what other authority we need.

 

[happilycatholic]

Ok, I tried but I’m not following. Above you state that scripture is not authoritative, now you seem to be saying that the scriptures of the NT are authoritative, but only the NT. Is this right or am I missing something?

 

[happilycatholic]

Richard Kastner:

I’ve been reading through some of your previous posts on other threads and I want to know if this is an SDA belief, especially the part in red:

**
**
What makes you think He isn’t. Do you think that it’s an accident that He took Word (logos) to indicate who He was. Further on in Jn17 we read 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

How do you think we become one with the Father and the Son
1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

We abide (live) in the WORD OF GOD. We abide in Christ and He in us thru the WORD OF GOD.

---

No, no, no, we abide in Christ through our Baptism and He in us through the Eucharist. This is like saying we are saved by the Bible. This is like saying that if we never had the Bible, Christ wouldn’t have existed. Christ existed before the Bible, not the other way around. I know you know that, but I think you are so veiled by Sola Scriptura that you are bordering on…well a bad thing.

Do you actually believe that the written word came first and that’s why Christ is called The Word???

We become one with the Father and the Son through the Bible, through Scripture? Where does it indicate that in Scripture?

Do you honestly think when Christ said “my words abide in you” He was speaking of Scripture? See this:

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away.

How could Heaven and eath pass away and leave the Bible? I don’t think that’s what Matthew was talking about.

We should hold Scripture as Sacred and Holy and revere it as such, but to place it above, or on the same level as Christ is wrong. Scripture alone does not give us life. It tells us how to obtain it, but it does nothing to empart Grace upon us. It is God’s inspired Word, but Christ is The Word and nothing, not even Scripture can be placed above him. The Church is in authority over Scripture, not Scripture over the Church. Since God divinely inspired His Apostles as well and commissioned them with authority over His Church, Scripture is the ward of the Church and subject to its interpretation.

Scripture is but one part of the Deposit of Faith. It is not Christ in written word. It is not Divine in itself. It has absolutley no authority commissioned to it by God. God’s authority is defined within it, but it needs an interpretor.

I can see these debates are going nowhere. You will continue to claim these things that are, IMHO blasphemy and bordering on Bible worship. Your eyes are veiled and your heart hardened for now.

God Bless you Richard Kastner.

HC