Sola Scriptura is True

[Contarini]

Roy May I ask what church do you go to.I never heard of a Christian church that does not believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection

Roy made it clear that he dissents from or questions the doctrine publicly professed by his church. I am not sure why you failed to understand this.

Edwin

 

[MrS]

Adam and Eve and Noah and the Flood are indeed mythical stories.

Edwin

hhmmm…

so Jesus is not the second Adam… thanks for that.

.

 

[Contarini]

hhmmm…

so Jesus is not the second Adam.

Non sequitur.

Edwin

 

[DD2007]

If something happened that compelled you to feel the need to repent of being a part of this organization, why would you not want to share it wiith others? Perhaps you could help prevent others from being scandalized? Why do you feel the need to keep a “secret” if you were injured in some way?

I hate talking about the knights. I won’t talk about the initiation ceremony and private meeting details because we can’t. It is dishonerable to do that.

But I can say that I have repented of supporting any organization that prays to anything other than God and have repented for my personal idolatry as well.

However, that is another topic.

 

[Mickey]

But I can say that I have repented of supporting any organization that prays to anything other than God and have repented for my personal idolatry as well.

Now that you have accused them of idolatry, I believe you owe it to the Catholics on this forum to describe which deities you think they are worshipping.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I hate talking about the knights. I won’t talk about the initiation ceremony and private meeting details because we can’t. It is dishonerable to do that.

But I can say that I have repented of supporting any organization that prays to anything other than God and have repented for my personal idolatry as well.

However, that is another topic.

DD, You are talking hogwash I know what you are talking about and it is %# and you know it and it has NOTHING to do with God you are trying to make a story and you have none thats for 1s degree you are being decitful and you are being very dishonest.and to use the word idolatry is a out and out lie now I said it show me I,m wrong…You are just a Cathloic BIGOT running your mouth

 

[Bill_Pick]

DD, You are talking hogwash I know what you are talking about and it is %# and you know it and it has NOTHING to do with God you are trying to make a story and you have none thats for 1s degree you are being decitful and you are being very dishonest.and to use the word idolatry is a out and out lie now I said it show me I,m wrong…You are just a Cathloic BIGOT running your mouth

 

[dj_dave]

Easy because Jesus left the Church to Peter. He told him I give you the Keys to the kingdom. Peter’s Church was the RCC. He appointed a successor to his seat, and on and on and on. So its not our inrerpretation its the truth. There is proof. Follow the history. THe POPES in Peters SEAT!

How did Peter use “the keys of the kingdom” that were entrusted to him?
Jesus said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will be the thing bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loose on earth will be the thing loosed in the heavens.” (Mt 16:19) The identification of these keys logically must be based on other Scriptural information. Jesus made another reference to the subject of keys when he said to the religious leaders, versed in the Law, “You took away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not go in, and those going in you hindered!” (Lu 11:52) A comparison of this text with Matthew 23:13 indicates that the ‘going in’ referred to is with regard to entrance into “the kingdom of the heavens.” Thus, the use of the word “key” in Jesus’ statement to Peter indicated that Peter would have the privilege of initiating a program of instruction that would open up special opportunities with respect to the Kingdom of the heavens.

Different from the hypocritical religious leaders of that time, Peter clearly did use divinely provided knowledge to help persons to ‘enter into the kingdom,’ notably on three occasions. **One **was on the day of Pentecost 33*C.E., when Peter, under inspiration, revealed to a gathered multitude that Jehovah God had resurrected Jesus and exalted him to His own right hand in the heavens and that Jesus, in that royal position, had poured out holy spirit on his assembled disciples. As a result of this knowledge and acting upon Peter’s exhortation, “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit,” about 3,000 Jews (and Jewish converts) took the step that led to their becoming prospective members of “the kingdom of the heavens.” Other Jews subsequently followed their example.—Ac 2:1-41.

On another occasion ** (2)…**Peter and John were sent to the Samaritans, who had not received the holy spirit even though they had been baptized. However, the two apostles “prayed for them” and “went laying their hands upon them,” and they received holy spirit.—Ac 8:14-17.

**The third occasion **of Peter’s being used in a special way to introduce persons into privileges as Kingdom heirs was when he was sent to the home of the Gentile Cornelius, an Italian centurion. By divine revelation Peter recognized and declared God’s impartiality as regards Jews and Gentiles and that people of the nations, if God fearing and doers of righteousness, were now as acceptable to God as their Jewish counterparts. While Peter was presenting this knowledge to his Gentile hearers, the heavenly gift of the holy spirit came upon them and they miraculously spoke in tongues.

They were subsequently baptized and became the first prospective members of “the kingdom of the heavens” from among the Gentiles. The unlocked door of opportunity for Gentile believers to become members of the Christian congregation thereafter remained open.—Ac 10:1-48; 15:7-9.

Matthew 16:19 may be rendered with grammatical correctness: “Whatever you may bind on earth will be the thing bound [or, the thing already bound] in the heavens, and whatever you may loose on earth will be the thing loosed [or, the thing already loosed] in the heavens.” The translation by Charles B.*Williams here reads: “Whatever you forbid on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth must be what is already permitted in heaven.” Greek scholar Robert Young’s literal translation reads: “Whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.”

Since other texts make clear that the resurrected Jesus remained the one true Head over the Christian congregation, it is obvious that his promise to Peter did not mean Peter’s dictating to heaven what should or should not be loosed but, rather, Peter’s being used as heaven’s instrument in the unlocking, or loosing, of certain determined things.—1Co 11:3; Eph 4:15,*16; 5:23; Col 2:8-10.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Who wants to hazard a guess that the Knights say a “Hail Mary”? Oh the idolatry! I’ll bet they pray a litany of the saints too. Imagine!

 

[exoflare]

CIRCULAR REASONING AHOY!

 

[DD2007]

:ballspin: Still waiting for an explaination for how the word every means not enough.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

 

[Contarini]

:ballspin: Still waiting for an explaination for how the word every means not enough.

Actually “every” doesn’t mean “enough” or “not enough.” That’s like asking if “tomatoes” mean “ripe.” Whether Scripture is sufficient to accomplish its purpose alone is a separate question from the *scope *of its purpose.

The whole question is an artificial one, because no one in the early Church would have thought to set Scripture up against the “rule of faith” promulgated by the Church. Granted, it was the questionable teaching and practice of the medieval Church that led people to do this, in part.

Edwin

 

[Filioque]

:ballspin: Still waiting for an explaination for how the word every means not enough.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

(Modified from the Fisheaters website)

No Catholic, of course, disagrees with these verses, or with any verses of Sacred Scripture. Of course Scripture is profitable! We Catholics see it as one of the three pillars of the very Church (the other two being Sacred Tradition and the Magisterim – the teaching authority of the Church). But Protestants are obviously reading into this text what they want to see.

Imagine for a minute you are a soldier. Now read this:

“All Army teaching guides are given by inspiration of the experts, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in the life of a soldier: That the soldier may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all a soldier needs to do.”

Would you take it to mean that the soldier, then, no longer needs a Drill Sergeant for training him, weaponry, ammunition, armor, communications equipment, etc.? Saying that X is profitable or necessary and that X helps one become thoroughly furnished for something doesn’t say at all that Y is also not profitable or necessary and that Y helps one become thoroughly furnished for something. And how can Protestants square their reading of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 with Ephesians 4:11-12, which reads: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: " or, Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of Truth. "

According to these verses, what is needed for the perfecting of the saints are the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers! How could this possibly be if all we need is the “Bible alone”?

In his St. Paul’s epistles, he tells us that there are “some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Let alone the where we are admonished in 2 Peter 1:20
“Knowing this first,no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

 

[rinnie]

I hate talking about the knights. I won’t talk about the initiation ceremony and private meeting details because we can’t. It is dishonerable to do that.

But I can say that I have repented of supporting any organization that prays to anything other than God and have repented for my personal idolatry as well.

However, that is another topic.

Now I know what he is up to. This is just he chance to talk smack on the Blessed Mother. WHY am I not surprised?

I should have known, he has been doing his best to change this to her in the first Place. Well you know what DD. I love the Blessed Mother. And so did my Dad. He loved her with all his heart and soul. ANd he always went to her and asked for her prayers all of his life and taught me the same. And I wouldn’t change it for the world.

Dear Blessed Mother please pray for me and my kids and family. And thank-you for saying yes to God and thankyou for giving us Jesus. I love you Blessed Mother with all my heart and soul. And thank-you for taking care of Daddy now and Joey and please let them know how much I love and miss them. And please hug Jesus for me and tell him I love him also with all my heart and soul and mind.

I am not ashamed. I pray that everyday, and I do not care who talks about me.

 

[dj_dave]

you are mistaken, 1 Cor 10:12

if Christ established the Roman Catholic Church, why is it that we look in vain in the Holy Bible for such expressions most current among her, such as trinity, purgatory, mass, immortal soul, lent, novenas, indulgences, penances, holy water, veneration of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, etc.?

also,

If Christ Jesus and his apostles did indeed establish the Roman Catholic Church, then why is it that we look in vain, from Matthew through the Apocalypse or Revelation, for any mention whatsoever of the Holy Father, or a pope, a college of cardinals, archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, monsignors, right reverends, priests, abbots, monks and nuns?

Recall a truth that Jesus Christ expressed: “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.” .—Matthew 7:13,14.

also consider:

Matt. 16:18, JB: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.” (Notice in the context [vss. 13,*20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus.)

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone “cornerstone,” NAB].’”

1*Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “*Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”*Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”

What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church)?

“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus ... In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’..*. But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington,*D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy among them?
Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also between them [the apostles] about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.’” (If Peter were the “rock,” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?)

Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?
Heb. 7:23-25, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests [in Israel], because death put an end to each one of them; but this one [Jesus Christ], because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

Rom. 6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead will never die again.”

Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church.”

 

[Filioque]

you are mistaken, 1 Cor 10:12

if Christ established the Roman Catholic Church, why is it that we look in vain in the Holy Bible for such expressions most current among her, such as trinity, purgatory, mass, immortal soul, lent, novenas, indulgences, penances, holy water, veneration of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, etc.?

Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church.”

Or Kingdom Halls, or Arianism, when after all Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” or Michael creating all other things, after a non-omnipresent, non-omnicient God created Michael, or that creation took 42,000 years rather than the Biblical 7 days, or as at one point, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society taught that God ruled the universe from somewhere in the Pleiades star system. Or any of the other teachings that Charles Taze Russell invented, and were changed by Judge Rutheford, which the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society changes even as it the claims to be the only true channel of God’s truth on earth today and that it alone can properly interpret God’s word since it is the angel directed prophet of God on earth.

My interest in the whole JW issue started when I was given two editions of “LET GOD BE TRUE” in which major dogmatic shifts take place between the Green and Brown covered editions, (They are in a box with other early Watchtower books and printed matter, so I can’t cite the edition numbers just now.)

If Watchtower can claim, when a doctrine changes that the light of truth is getting brighter. I can’t see how you can find fault in the Catholic Church expounding on truths held by the Church in Apostolic times, or in defining dogmas when they are attacked by those like Arius who teach error.

As a Catholic I must agree with the final Biblical quote. Jesus is the Head of the Church. However as the Church is composed of the souls of the living, and those in purgatory and in heaven, over which Jesus Reigns supreme, we have been given by Jesus a Rock and visible head on Earth, Peter and his successors. Now that’s Biblical…

 

[dj_dave]

composed of the **souls **of the living, and those in purgatory

and in heaven, over which Jesus Reigns supreme, we have been given by Jesus a Rock and visible head on Earth, Peter and his successors. Now that’s Biblical…/QUOTE]

ACTUALLY IT’S NOT

“SOUL” AS USED IN THE BIBLE
First, consider the soul. You may remember that the Bible was originally written mainly in Hebrew and Greek. When writing about the soul, the Bible writers used the Hebrew word ne′phesh or the Greek word psy·khe′. These two words occur well over 800 times in the Scriptures, and the New World Translation consistently renders them “soul.” When you examine the way “soul” or “souls” is used in the Bible, it becomes evident that this word basically refers to (1)people, (2)animals, or (3)the life that a person or an animal enjoys. Let us consider some scriptures that present these three different senses.
People. “In Noah’s days ... a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” (1Peter 3:20) Here the word “souls” clearly stands for people—Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. Exodus 16:16 mentions instructions given to the Israelites regarding the gathering of manna. They were told: “Pick up some of it ... according to the number of the souls that each of you has in his tent.” So the amount of manna that was gathered was based upon the number of people in each family. Some other Biblical examples of the application of “soul” or “souls” to a person or to people are found at Genesis 46:18; Joshua 11:11; Acts 27:37; and Romans 13:1.

Animals. In the Bible’s creation account, we read: “God went on to say: ‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God went on to say: ‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.” (Genesis 1:20,24) **In this passage, fish, domestic animals, and wild beasts are all referred to by the same word—“souls.” Birds and other animals are called souls at Genesis 9:10; Leviticus 11:46; and Numbers 31:28.**Life as a person. Sometimes the word “soul” means one’s life as a person. Jehovah told Moses: “All the men who were hunting for your soul are dead.” (Exodus 4:19) What were Moses’ enemies hunting for? They were seeking to take Moses’ life. Earlier, while Rachel was giving birth to her son Benjamin, “her soul was going out (because she died).” (Genesis 35:16-19) At that moment, Rachel lost her life. Consider also Jesus’ words: “I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep.” (John 10:11) Jesus gave his soul, or life, in behalf of mankind. In these Bible passages, the word “soul” clearly refers to life as a person. You will find more examples of this sense of “soul” at 1Kings 17:17-23; Matthew 10:39; John 15:13; and Acts 20:10.

A further study of God’s Word will show you that nowhere in the entire Bible are the terms “immortal” or “everlasting” linked with the word “soul.” Instead, the Scriptures state that a soul is mortal, meaning that it dies. (Ezekiel 18:4,*20) Therefore, the Bible calls someone who has died simply a “dead soul.”—Leviticus 21:11.

AND AS FOR YOUR COMMENT ON CHANGES IN JW TEACHINGS CONSIDER: users.picknowl.com.au/~hepburn/prophecy.htm

 

[Filioque]

Not enough spin to be convincing. I’ve collected and read Old Watchtower material for some time now. Including a very hard to find Birthday Reminder Book, so you can remember to celebrate family and other Society member’s birthdays, published back in the days of Russell. You won’t find the Watchtower admitting to having published that too often.

 

[dj_dave]

Not enough spin to be convincing. ***I’ve collected and read Old Watchtower material for some time now. *** Including a very hard to find Birthday Reminder Book, so you can remember to celebrate family and other Society member’s birthdays, published back in the days of Russell. You won’t find the Watchtower admitting to having published that too often.

I’m sorry you feel the way you do. Why ‘old’ Watchtower material?
It would do you well to read this site

jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html

Actually, we also used to celebrate Christmas, Easter and more. But, we started wondering what in the world does a rabbit and eggs have to do with Christ’s resurrection
H-m-m-m…so The early Bible Students did some prayerful research.
OH! They exclaimed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre

Did you notice that the word “Easter” isn’t even in the Bible?

*The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date of as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3] Ecclesiastically, the equinox is reckoned to be on 21 March. The date of Easter therefore varies between 22 March and 25 April. Eastern Christianity bases its calculations on the Julian Calendar whose 21 March corresponds, during the twenty-first century, to 3 April in the Gregorian Calendar, in which calendar their celebration of Easter therefore varies between 4 April and 8 May.
Oh that’s nice they thought…but wait…
The Easter Bunny is very similar in trait to its Christmas holiday counterpart, Santa Claus, as they both bring gifts to good children on the night before their respective holiday. Oh that’s nice they thought…but wait…[/BIts origin mentioned in print as early as 1620; and can be traced to the German fertility goddess Ēostre. Ostara (1884) by Johannes Gehrts. The goddess flies through the heavens surrounded by Roman-inspired putti, beams of light, and animals. Germanic people look up at the goddess from the realm below.

Well, they thought that can’t be good. Why? Because they Knew 2 cor. 6:14-19 said "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Be′li·al?( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial )Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 “‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take YOU in.’” 18 “‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.”

“Therefore get out from among them” not mix in with them and say " we now make you clean" as they did at The First Council of Nicaea.

Although we preach the good news to our neighbors, as Jesus’ followers we are “no part of the world.” (John 15:19) The term “world” here refers to human society alienated from God. (Ephesians 4:17-19; 1John 5:19) We are separate from the world in that we shun attitudes, speech, and conduct that offend Jehovah. (1 John 2:15-17) Moreover, in harmony with the principle that “bad associations spoil useful habits,” we avoid intimacy with those who do not live by Christian standards. (1*Corinthians 15:33) To be no part of the world is to remain “without spot from the world.” (James 1:27) Hence, being separate from the world does not mean that we physically withdraw from all contact with other people.—John 17:15,16; 1 Corinthians 5:9,10.

This along with many more “increased light changing teachings” including the dangers of smoking in 1973…was and still is --whether you believe it or not–"Proverbs 4:18 Psalm 97:11; Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19; and 2 Corinthians 4:6–notice knowledge and light together. gotta run.*

 

[Filioque]

Why old Watchtower Material? Well for one thing so I could compair what Current Watchtower doctrines and practices are and how Doctrines have changed. Secondly to read the entire articles in context. I do this with Anti-Catholic Polemics too. I have everything from Maria Monk and Hislop, to James White and Paul Blanchard on my shelves, with regard to JW material, I want to see for myself if what the Anti-JW writers are telling me from a snippet is correct or misleading. Many things are misleading. I also want to check the spin of JW sites, like the ones you have posted.

Much of what I’ve read in the Watchtower, Awake, and various books published by the Brooklyn Bibleworks, about the Catholic Church, and quotes of Catholic authors I’ve found to be just as misleading and untrue as the falsehoods that many an Anti-Catholic who posts here copies from the “Usual Suspects” of Anti-Catholic writers. So it works both way. In order to be fair, I read both sides, and do some fact checking.