ss again

[benhur]

If this is true , then Gods truth cannot be known.

Not by flesh and blood…how did Adam know what God truthfully said about what not to eat ? Did Adam really need interpretation?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not by flesh and blood…how did Adam know what God truthfully said about what not to eat ? Did Adam really need interpretation?

God spoke to him directly.

Are you saying God goes on walks with you and audibly speaks to you, sits and converses with you?

 

[adf417]

There are also many differences based on which church also. So now what ? It is not that one bases authority on the bible or on a church, but whether it is judiciously done. A thing is either right or wrong. I tell you that even with our differences there still is plenty of wisdom crying from the rooftops, from the church/tradition/bible… You had divisions when oral tradition was the only thing (the first generation church) and you did after the beginning of Written, as you continued after councils . So tradition/oral/written/ councilar paradigms still leave divisions. They used to say which tradition, which apostle but I am of Peter or I am of Paul. Then which scripture, Luke or Barnabus or Thomas or Acts of Pilate or gospel of Nicodemus ? Then which councils, the ones of the east or the ones of the west, one towards Rome or towards Constantinople, and which popes or anti popes. …Truth always divides, no matter what she is conveyed by.

I just picturing Barnabas in Acts 15:11** standing up and saying “but Pete, dude ^^^^”

Truth doesn’t divide, people do. Truth always remains!

You did a good job here avoiding the term “invisible” but you were unable to escape the “misleading” part of your definition from post #24.

Kindly, plainly tell me where is this viable church that we can implore to solve this issue, you know like in Acts 15? Once we have this visible entity we can decide whether or not to continue circumcising or not.

Peace!!!**

 

[Porknpie]

No that is the debate today. We agree 99.5 % on God’s Word, even His written Word today. Just how much of a constitution it is to be is unfortunately the debate today.

Not really. Protestants are missing 7 books of the bible. At best we agree on 90%.

 

[edkw55]

I just picturing Barnabas in Acts 15:11** standing up and saying “but Pete, dude ^^^^”

Truth doesn’t divide, people do. Truth always remains!

You did a good job here avoiding the term “invisible” but you were unable to escape the “misleading” part of your definition from post #24.

Kindly, plainly** tell me where is this viable church that we can implore to solve this issue, you know like in Acts 15? Once we have this visible entity we can decide whether or not to continue circumcising or not.

Peace!!!

Maybe this will help in what is meant by the terms visible and invisible:

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he *said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”~(Matthew 13:24-30 NASB)

 

[benhur]

God spoke to him directly.

Are you saying God goes on walks with you and audibly speaks to you, sits and converses with you?

And are you asking if we as baptized confirmed believers we are not in dwelt and baptized in the holy ghost ? Or does the interpreter in us need an interpreter ?
And Adam was he just flesh and blood ? That perceived and conversed with the Lord ?

 

[benhur]

Not really. Protestants are missing 7 books of the bible. At best we agree on 90%.

Ok actually I wonder if anyone has done the math but not book by book but word by word, like how many words does one have compared to the other and then give a percentage. Anyways 90 plus is still pretty good relative to all the fuss.

 

[edkw55]

Truth doesn’t divide, people do. Truth always remains!

I completely agree with you.

People - fallible

Bible - infallible

For me the Bible is the only Infallible Authority. I do however have authorities and traditions (note small a small t) which I look to for guidance but they must be tested against the Authority of the Bible. Am I always right? No. Is Sola Scriptura a flawless system? No. Does it lead to division? Yes. Does Jesus expect this of each and every one of us? Yes! Is it a heavy burden being your own Pope? Yes!

Ed

P.S. Of coarse everything I said is based on my opinion that the Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[benhur]

I just picturing Barnabas in Acts 15:11** standing up and saying “but Pete, dude ^^^^”

Truth doesn’t divide, people do. Truth always remains!

You did a good job here avoiding the term “invisible” but you were unable to escape the “misleading” part of your definition from post #24.

Kindly, plainly** tell me where is this viable church that we can implore to solve this issue, you know like in Acts 15? Once we have this visible entity we can decide whether or not to continue circumcising or not.

Peace!!!
No, truth divides divides people not itself per Jesus say so, you know brother against brother etc. as He said.
So are you saying that only big councils make us visible ? Small parishes or congregations don’t count as being visible church ? Have you been visible since last time around 1965 Vatican 2 ? So when you all get together that is visible but if all baptists or Methodists etc get together in any fashion they are invisible ? Does my tithe go to an invisible church ? Do I go to an invisible church for advice or prayer or to learn or to teach or fellowship ? Does my invisible church send out invisible missionaries ?

 

[edkw55]

Maybe this will help in what is meant by the terms visible and invisible:

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he *said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”~(Matthew 13:24-30 NASB)

The invisible Church includes all who are His wherever they may be.

The visible Church is always a mixture of the saved and the lost.

 

[benhur]

Well I guess there are a lot of churches of ONE then.

You cant possibly believe this none sense!

It is sad to see people trade reason, logic, common sense and even scripture itself in favor of a man made doctrine.

I say we take sola Scriptura to the entire ecclesia.

1 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox voting against 600 million Protestants.

I guess in your scenario you’d be deemed a heretic…

Actually when councils convene it is a big deal and this topic comes into play, like just how scriptural to be and how much on our correct say so. I believe at the pivotal Trent council the exact wording dealing with topic of tradition and sacred scripture and the story or even debate or struggle behind it is revealing. There were those who wanted heavier emphasis on tradition and church rulings and those who wanted to make sure it was always according to scripture. It almost went the other way,towards tradition instead of the equal partnership they ended up decreeing…so be careful with any votes,it could more than just no SS? You may end up saying tradition,our say so,trumps all,even scripture.

 

[benhur]

The problem is not “is it Gods Word”. Of course it is!

The problem is, the interpretation, and especially the interpretation when it’s removed from the church from which it was given.

Is it the Catholic, orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, evangelicals, Mormons, baptists , fundamentalists, etc etc etc

Whose is right?

The Bible doesn’t speak for itself.

It is read through a lens.

Catholics hold that we read it through the lens of the Apostolic Church.

We read Corinthians with the frame of the Church on Corinth who received it.

Of course agree thru a lens like divinely inspired and written,divinely received and kept and passed down and to be divinely understood( otherwise it is private understanding). Again for us to be on the divine level we need to be born of the spirit and the mind of Christ in us is the lens in which we operate when discerning receiving all authorities be it church, bible pastors teachers parents councils bishops etc etc for He discerneth all things . In the end He does speak to our inner man for Himself. The bible can speak for itself,as surely as you can for yourself or a council speaks of itself thru canons etc., etc.

 

[edkw55]

Wrong.

Protestants [do not] agree (for the vast majority) with the Catholic Bible (The true Bible) in the first place. So there is [some] agreement from the Protestants [with] the Catholic Church on what is the Word of God. The Catholic Church has nothing to agree with 1500’s and after ideologies that have the audacity to declare what is and isn’t the Word of God. We know, it is our Liturgical Book before it was even put together.

You are right Jose. If I remember right Protestants have 7 less books in their Old Testament.

Funny, I just placed one of my Bibles on the table and I stared at it for about 30 minutes. It didn’t say anything to me.

However, when I read it or someone reads it to me – it does.

This is true.

St. Peter agrees with the Catholics
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this[c] as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

So does St. Paul:
1 Timothy 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The writer of Hebrews agrees as well:
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

We don’t agree on this point. Maybe there will come a time when He will lead me to accept that “the one true Church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman Church”. If that were to happen I would follow my Lord and Savior and gladly submit to the Authority of the Roman catholic Church.

I’ll get to your other points in a bit…ed

 

[adf417]

I completely agree with you.

People - fallible

Bible - infallible

For me the Bible is the only Infallible Authority. I do however have authorities and traditions (note small a small t) which I look to for guidance but they must be tested against the Authority of the Bible. Am I always right? No. Is Sola Scriptura a flawless system? No. Does it lead to division? Yes. Does Jesus expect this of each and every one of us? Yes! Is it a heavy burden being your own Pope? Yes!

:bigyikes: I will have to disagree! But of coarse I base this on “SS” of John chapter 17.

Ed

P.S. Of coarse everything I said is based on my opinion that the Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Understood!

 

[adf417]

No, truth divides divides people not itself per Jesus say so, you know brother against brother etc. as He said.
So are you saying that only big councils make us visible ? Small parishes or congregations don’t count as being visible church ? Have you been visible since last time around 1965 Vatican 2 ? So when you all get together that is visible but if all baptists or Methodists etc get together in any fashion they are invisible ? Does my tithe go to an invisible church ? Do I go to an invisible church for advice or prayer or to learn or to teach or fellowship ? Does my invisible church send out invisible missionaries ?

Why all the questions? I asked a simple one and gave a simple example of how this question was answered in the early church and you dance around it. Why? If there is a visible church as you say then all of Christianity should know if baptism is or is not symbolic, if Christ is or is not really present in the Eucharist, if we should or should not circumcise - oh never mind that one is taken care of. Well you know what I mean…

Peace!!!

 

[edkw55]

(Are you excluding Eastern Catholics when you use “Roman”?)
(BTW - Catholic is the proper and correct way)

I mean no disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church when I do this. Not At All!

I am not referring to the East West Schism of the 11th 12th century (not sure about the exact date).

If I remember correctly it was in one of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch that we learn that the Church had come to be called the Catholic Church (in the ancient languages the word translated catholic means universal). This would mean that the Church came to be called the Catholic Church sometime around the late 1st early 2nd century or thereabouts. I am always reluctant to call the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church because I am making a distinction and I’m sure you already know why.

Perhaps you can then explain the myriad of interpretations further dividing the Body of Christ? And how that is the way it should be.

Man is a fallen creature and fallible. That’s about the best I can do. Neither one us like “myriad of interpretations further dividing the Body of Christ” but that is reality. However, Jesus did make some promises to us regarding his Church’s future.

My teenagers insist in their own interpretation of living… at my expense nonetheless… that doesn’t make it true or practical.

I agree.

 

[edkw55]

:bigyikes: I will have to disagree! But of coarse I base this on “SS” of John chapter 17.

Understood!

The state of Christendom today and Jesus High Priestly Prayer has always disturbed me. The Authority claimed by the Catholic Church(unity…no more millions of interpretations and denominations, Home at last) is one of the biggies that attracted me to Her in the first place. Never quit made it across the Tiber however.

 

[adf417]

The state of Christendom today and Jesus High Priestly Prayer has always disturbed me. The Authority claimed by the Catholic Church(unity…no more millions of interpretations and denominations, Home at last) is one of the biggies that attracted me to Her in the first place. Never quit made it across the Tiber however.

We will leave the light on for you, candle light!

Peace!!!

 

[spina1953]

I mean no disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church when I do this. Not At All!

I am not referring to the East West Schism of the 11th 12th century (not sure about the exact date).

If I remember correctly it was in one of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch that we learn that the Church had come to be called the Catholic Church (in the ancient languages the word translated catholic means universal). This would mean that the Church came to be called the Catholic Church sometime around the late 1st early 2nd century or thereabouts. I am always reluctant to call the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church because I am making a distinction and I’m sure you already know why.

Man is a fallen creature and fallible. That’s about the best I can do. Neither one us like “myriad of interpretations further dividing the Body of Christ” but that is reality. However, Jesus did make some promises to us regarding his Church’s future.

I agree.

I would like to point out that Eastern Catholic’s are in union with Rome and are Catholic also, as there are many rites within the Catholic Church which the Latin rite is just one of many. Orthodox are those who are separated from the Catholic Church due to schism.

 

[edkw55]

We will leave the light on for you, candle light!

Peace!!!

…thanks…ed