A
allischalmers
Guest
And now, O Father, Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory whiich I had with thee before the world wasJohn 17
- Status
M
MrS
Guest
do you see the difference between
…we will be angels
and
…we will be like angels??
Besides, Mary was assumed into Heaven, body and all,…
and Revelations describes her with a crown… and a foot
omg, she has no body, just a foot…
.
C
COLOS
Guest
This is what happens when you abandon an authoritative interpretation in favor of your own insight. You will come to many mistaken conclusions regardless of the historical understanding of the text. You will not even feel the need to verify what you think you know.
Who taught you to believe that this was the correct interpretation of these specific verses of Sacred Scripture?
Everything in this life is viewed through your unique filter, and everyone has their own filter. Our filters are composed of all of the events of our lives. Everyone’s filter is slightly different for their neighbor’s filter. Every passage of Sacred Scripture you read will be sifted through this filter in your mind. You will come up with your own interpretation based on how the events in your life have effected your mind. How many different interpretations can we find for these texts? We will find as many interpretations as there are heads.
God promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth. This does not mean that each of us laypersons has an infallible sense of what any specific text means or does not mean. Only by studying what has been, and is being, taught by the Bishops for the last 2,000 years can lead us to a right understanding of Sacred Scripture. Yes, by all means study the Bible, but maintain an awareness that you do not have a complete understanding of what it means.
A
allischalmers
Guest
Where in the Bible does it say that??
A
allischalmers
Guest
Not my interpretation, Quoted from God’s word, word for word and not hard to understand
F
FCEGM
Guest
and
But where do you see in this verse that the Lord, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, had a glorified body which He returned to at His Resurrection? Of course, at His Resurrection (and at His Transfiguration which was a foretaste of what was to come) He manifested the glory that was His eternally, but which was hidden under the flesh He took upon Himself. If you think He had a body in Heaven before His Incarnation, then you are at one with the Mormons.
C
COLOS
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Where does the Bible say that everything we can know about God is found exclusively in the Bible? The Bible itself points to an authoritative, teaching Church.
But could you be more precise, what are you objecting to here?
T
Tomster
Guest
Exactly!
Since men are notoriously prone to the intellectual influences of their surroundings and had a darkening of intellect after the Fall that was exacerbated by the “father of lies”, the “open sesame” of the Sola Scriptura doctrine of private interpretation led to a chaotic explosion of novel interpretations of Scripture. Immediately after the Reformation, the sects founded by the Reformers split and divided in every direction as every new interpretation of Scripture led to the creation of a new sect. Martin Luther wrote, “There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Ghost, and he himself a prophet.”
A
allischalmers
Guest
Hey sonny, I think I have too many years on you for you to call me “son.”Be careful, son. That’s a Catholic book you are holding.
The book that you call catholic was written mostly by Jews who were moved by the Holy Spirit and canonized by God. Man, lead by the Holy Spirit only discovered what God had determined was to be Holy Scripture.
T
Tomster
Guest
A little history and common sense for you.
The word “canon” comes from the Greek word kanon, which means a measuring stick or defining rule. In the case of Scripture, its canon is the official list of inspired books that, taken together, make up what we know as the Bible. God is the one who made these books inspired and, by virtue of that fact, canonical ( 2 Timothy 3:16 ) - not the Catholic Church. And this is a key issue in understanding the Tradition of the canon of Scripture. Many non-Catholics, especially Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants, argue against a caricature of the Catholic teaching by imagining, wrongly, that the Catholic Church claims that she herself made these books canonical. That is not true. The Catholic Church was the recipient of God’s revelation about which books were inspired and which were not. And because God revealed this truth, it is necessarily part of the Deposit of Faith, a Tradition that comes from God, not from men. It falls squarely into the realm of teaching that St. Paul said: “Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught either by an oral statement or by letter of ours” ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ).
All Protestants accept this crucial Catholic Tradition, though usually without realizing it is a Catholic Tradition, and they do so, ironically, while they at the same time condemn Catholic Tradition!!
Protestant Bibles rely completely on Catholic Tradition
V
VociMike
Guest
Are you denying that the writers of the New Testament were Christians? If not, why the comment about Jews?
C
COLOS
Guest
There is no need for hostility. My response was in a good-natured manner.
Individuals within the Church had no clue which books to include as authoritative scripture until a council was held somewhere in the fourth century that proclaimed what was inspired. That was a Catholic council. The book we all love so much came from the Church by and through the Grace of God. The Church did not, does not, and never will come from the Bible. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
I’ll let some of the more historically literate people on this forum provide more accurate dates and times for you.
To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.
T
Tomster
Guest
Ah, yes, the Church IS the pillar and foundation of Truth. That was in the Bible the last time I checked. So, maybe, our esteemed adversary can give us defintion of what he believes the Church to be. I sure hope it is line with what other non-Catholic Christians believe it to be. For him to be at odds with other non-Catholic definitions would place him in a difficult spot. Let us wait for a response.
A
allischalmers
Guest
The word church is defined as meaning “called out ones” therefore the church is all those that have been called out of the world to be the body of Christ, (they are mostly Baptist)
The Church could not be the pillar and foundation of truth if it was not true to the word of God so it would have to be Baptist
M
MrS
Guest
Not surprised at your answer.
For a relatively new “religion” (from the Greek, relationship - with God), the Baptists are staunch in their beliefs.
But not consistent.
I still marvel at the 3 Baptist faith communities in Saginaw, all on the same street and within a stones throw of each other… each with their own hired minister/pastor, and each with their own “tweeked” interpretations of selected versus of the Book of the Catholic Church.
Jesus founded One Church, and at the same time set into place His plan for the protection, the growth, and the leadership until He comes again.
He did not write anything (other than on the ground), and He gave no direct instructions for the early Catholics to write a NT.
Today is the feast day of the Ascension - I know of no Baptists recognizing this.
Soon is the feast of Pentecost - I know of no Baptists who were at the first one… they were all Apostles, Mary, and other disciples of Christ who, as a group were referred to by “The Way” which shortly became know as Catholic… not Baptist.
Pentecost is the birthday of the Catholic Church.
perhaps The River Of Blood is deemed credible by you… but it flies in the face of actual history, and also is in direct conflict with Scripture.
.
C
COLOS
Guest
Except that the Baptist sect did not come into existence until the around the year 1641. It appears that the Baptists missed the boat for having a truly historical church by sixteen hundred years.
The wording of the text is clear, to use your own earlier argument. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Also, should a man not obey even the Church, he should be treated as if he were a heathen and tax collector. These words were spoken long, long before the baptist sect appeared on the horizon.
M
MrS
Guest
From this site (and I don’t know if this is what allischalmers adheres to):
reformedreader.org/history/list.htm
First:
*We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.
and then:
The first known Baptist Congregation was formed by a number of these fleeing separatists in Amsterdam, Holland in 1608. It was largely made up of British persons led by John Smyth who along with Thomas Helwys, sought to set up the group according to New Testament patterns.*
and then, trying to seek a unity that does not exist…
The American Baptists deny that they owe their origin to Roger Williams. The English Baptists will not grant that John Smyth or Thomas Helwysse was their founder. The Welsh Baptists strenuously contend that they received their creed in the first century, from those who obtained it, direct, from the apostles themselves. The Dutch Baptists trace their spiritual pedigree up to the same source. German Baptists maintained that they were older than the reformation, older than the corrupt hierarchy which it sought to reform. The Waldensian Baptists boasted an ancestry far older than Waldo, older than the most ancient of their predecessors in the Vales of Piedmont. All these maintain that it ultimately reappears, and reveals their source in Christ and His apostles." (pp. 34-35 - The Testimony of the Baptists, by Curtis A. Pugh quoting William Cathcart, the Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, pp. 620-621.)
Perhaps it is summed up here,
founders.org/journal/fj18/editorial.html
and if so, I agree that “Baptists” have been around from the beginning. However, they are NOT the Church founded by Jesus Christ… and they never have been, and never will be…
“The mainstream of Baptist history is non-creedal. It affirms the right of private interpretation of Scripture. It magnifies the priesthood of the believer. It doesn’t subscribe to either an ethical or theological guideline that everybody has to march with because-that’s the essence of Baptists”
Yep, that is what has been happening since Pentecost, the birthday of the Catholic Church.
Not everyone heard Peter’s message and believed. He spoke, and thousands converted. It does not say that ALL converted. Must be because some decided to learn privately… and eventually, many centuries later, called themselves Baptists.
.
reformedreader.org/history/list.htm
First:
*We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.
and then:
The first known Baptist Congregation was formed by a number of these fleeing separatists in Amsterdam, Holland in 1608. It was largely made up of British persons led by John Smyth who along with Thomas Helwys, sought to set up the group according to New Testament patterns.*
and then, trying to seek a unity that does not exist…
The American Baptists deny that they owe their origin to Roger Williams. The English Baptists will not grant that John Smyth or Thomas Helwysse was their founder. The Welsh Baptists strenuously contend that they received their creed in the first century, from those who obtained it, direct, from the apostles themselves. The Dutch Baptists trace their spiritual pedigree up to the same source. German Baptists maintained that they were older than the reformation, older than the corrupt hierarchy which it sought to reform. The Waldensian Baptists boasted an ancestry far older than Waldo, older than the most ancient of their predecessors in the Vales of Piedmont. All these maintain that it ultimately reappears, and reveals their source in Christ and His apostles." (pp. 34-35 - The Testimony of the Baptists, by Curtis A. Pugh quoting William Cathcart, the Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, pp. 620-621.)
Perhaps it is summed up here,
founders.org/journal/fj18/editorial.html
and if so, I agree that “Baptists” have been around from the beginning. However, they are NOT the Church founded by Jesus Christ… and they never have been, and never will be…
“The mainstream of Baptist history is non-creedal. It affirms the right of private interpretation of Scripture. It magnifies the priesthood of the believer. It doesn’t subscribe to either an ethical or theological guideline that everybody has to march with because-that’s the essence of Baptists”
Yep, that is what has been happening since Pentecost, the birthday of the Catholic Church.
Not everyone heard Peter’s message and believed. He spoke, and thousands converted. It does not say that ALL converted. Must be because some decided to learn privately… and eventually, many centuries later, called themselves Baptists.
.
A
allischalmers
Guest
The first Baptist were the apostles, they wrote Baptist doctrine, the same doctrine that Baptist Churches teach today, and the same doctrine that the Catholic Chruch has changed over and over again.
- Status