What does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant?

[JRKH]

Is is as impossible for Jesus to lie as it is our heavenly Father. Jesus is not the Catholic Christ. Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is the head of the church.

AH - So you admit then that when Jesus said we are to “Tell It To The Church” Mt 18:15-18, He meant exactly what He said. And when we read the example of that in Acts:15: 1-29, that Jesus (In Holy Scripture) is giving us a Blueprint on How it works. For Jesus Cannot Lie.
Jesus is the “Catholic Christ” for two reasons. 1) Catholic is from the Greek and means universal. Therefore Jesus is the Universal Christ. 2)The Church, Catholic, that is universal, is The Church established by Christ as demonstrated in the bible.
Jesus is certainly the head of The Church, no True Catholic would deny this.

And when Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail, **I don’t think he meant **the CC would prevent it from happening. I believe he meant the believers in Jesus Christ would prevent it through the word of their testimony and not loving their life unto death and being covered by the blood of the lamb.

Herein Lies the crux. “I don’t think…” You don’t think, but then you don’t KNOW that this is not what He meant. Again I ask you to prayerfully consider the passages I have repeatedly outlined for you. The Catholic Church has stood as a Bulwark against heresy, and “trendy beliefs” since the time of the Apostles. She continues to do so today, which is why she is continually under attack by the forces of evil.
As for being “Covered in the Blood of the Lamb” even today, catholics are persecuted and killed for their beliefs. The Church has a long History of martyrdom.

Let God be true and men liars. Thank God for his saving grace. For what man can earn his way into heaven by not sinning with the exception of our Lord?

If men be liars, then why do you trust your soul to your preacher. Is he not a man? Why aren’t you curled up in a corner with your KJV?

I know that is snippy and I apologize, but You deny The Church as a liar, but Trust this individual?

One more thing, - And only because we catholics get accused of this so often, what makes you think you can “earn” your way to heaven?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yet, what is a different gospel? Is it not all this is not of the CC? I believe I can find in the CC archieves reference to this.

You are welcome to do just that. Please bring forth from actual catholic sources the things that you believe are different and we will gladly explain them to you. JUst please make them different threeads for clarities sake.

All I asked of James is that he view a teaching given me by the unction of the Holy Spirit. I wanted to see if he believed it was of God or of man? He denied my request for his own reasons. He did say something along the lines that if he did read the study, and decided it was not of God, what would I do? I believe that even before he would have read it, he would have his mind made up.

Yes I denied your requests and I explained why.
You were asking me to discern if what you had written was of God or man, and I asked you what you would do if I dicerned it was not of God. I asked this because I am trying to get you to address teh issues raised in Mt 18:15-18 and Acts 15:1-29. You consistantly refuse to do this, thus undercutting your own argument that you are following God’s Word as recorded in the Bible. You just fall back on “church doesn’t mean authority”.

The point I was attempting to make is if he did read what God has given and agreed it to be of God, then my comments claiming that the CC changed the way the apostles had laid down for the administration of the baptisms in the church would have validity.

Actually it would not have any more validity if I gree or not. Truth is not determined by whether I personally agree with it. There are several teachings in the Catholic Church that I struggle with, yet I accept them because The church teaches them and Christ Himslef has Charged me to obey The Church. It is my duty to conform myself to Christ through His Church and not try to conform Christ to myself through personal interpretation.

This is according to your interpretation or that of the CC. Don’t you see that it is our duty as believers to prove and reprove all things in discerning what is and is not of God.

But that argument seems to be only when it is conveniant for you. I pointed out on several occasions re: The Bible canon that the canon as established by the Catholic Church was proofed and reproofed repeatedly in council yet your response to this was a profound and very loud - silence. Your own arguments fall so easily and by your own words, yet you find that ignoring the proofs to be easier than addressing them in your own heart. You do realize that the root word of ignoance is - ignore.

Are there to be boundries erected that promote splintering of the church? Are we to accept every word from those in office in the church as the sole interpretors of the Word of God? Or is it our duty as the body of Christ to govern those who shepard us? Or are we to be led as sheep to the slaughter as those led by the Jones or Koresh of the world?

The simple asnwer to this is to look around.
The Catholic Church is the same today as it was in the days of the Apostles - ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC. We believe in Christ, His promises to the Apostles, and we obey the rightful authority placed over us.
We are to accept the teachings of the Church as from Christ, just as you accept the teaching of your pastor.
Did Christ set up a Kingdom or a democracy?
In a kingdom do the people Govern “Those who shepard us”
In a Kingdom, if those who “shepard” do so pourly then they answer to the king for their poor stewardship.
In a Kingdom those who obey, even an errant “shepard” are not punished by the King for their obedience.

Let us look at a senerio (parable) in the kingdom
A King set out on a long journey. He divided his kingdom in half placing a steward over each. While he was gone The Stewards oppressed the people. The People in the Northern Provence bore under the weight of the oppression and obeyed their steward. Those in the Southern provence rose up and killed the Steward placing another in his stead who ruled to their liking.
When the King returned to the northern provence and saw the oppression he arrested and executed the Wicked steward and commended his subjects for thier tolerance and loyalty
When He arrived at the southern provence and found the people had rose up against his ruler, he asked, Why have you rose up against those who I put in charge over you. Idid they not carry my authority? When you rose up agianst them did you not rise against me? He then had both the new ruler and all of his house killed, along with the houses of all those who took part in the revolt.
Let those who have ears Hear!!

This is how things are in the kingdom. When you are ready to live in God’s kingdom instead of man’s democracy, you will be truly worthy.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

John 3

In verse 3, Jesus is telling Nicodemus except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God…Now as you examine this, look
at the word born again. Does it not make sense that to be born again,
one must first be born. Now, Jesus didn’t mean to be born again in the flesh, for we are born once in the flesh and then we die. To prove this, examine the next verse.

In verse 4, Nicodemus asks how can a man be born when he is old. Can
he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?..
The important word to examine here is second…
Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about two physical births, but
he was not and the proof lies in the next verse.
In verse 5, Jesus says, except a man be born of water and of spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…Here our Lord is
telling of two different births, one by water and one by spirit.
When we are born into this world, we are born in a sack of water or
physical birth. Proof that Jesus is talking about physical birth and
spiritual birth can be found in the next verse.
In verse 6, Jesus says that which is born of the flesh is flesh and
that which is born of the spirit is spirit…physical birth,
spiritual birth
So if a man, who is dead in spirit doesn’t become reborn, he will
never see the kingdom of God. So when Jesus says a man must be born
again, he is talking about our dead spirit being born again. The
above scripture talks of three births. One in the flesh and two in
the spirit.

Do you think that what yo have written here is of any surprise to a Catholic?
Do you think that the catholic church would disagree that we must be reborn in spirit?

What is your point?

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

Do you think that what yo have written here is of any surprise to a Catholic?
Do you think that the catholic church would disagree that we must be reborn in spirit?

What is your point?

Peace
James

Being water baptized into the church does not save a man. The man must be born again before he is baptized in water. Being baptized in water does not make a man part of the family of Christ. The man must first be born again.

I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Sometimes it is better to establish a link or solid block on which to build from.

I have asked many catholics what it is to be born again and the most common answer I get is being baptized into the church. While that answer is correct, their understanding is being baptized by water, not of blood.

When a man is born again through faith, he is baptized into Christ (Romans 6) through his blood. It is this baptism that makes a man a member of the body of Christ.

Water baptism is given in the name of Jesus. It is symbolic of the baptism that saves us. Only God and the man knows what happens in the heart of a man when he is born again. When the man receives water baptism, he is confessing to the world that he has been born again, saved from death through the Son of God, thus giving God the glory he so rightfully deserves. The water being symbolic of the grave and when the man rises from the water, it is symbolic of the resurrection. It gives the man a good conscience toward God.

1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

 

[heiscominginthe]

Jesus is certainly the head of The Church, no True Catholic would deny this.

Jesus is the head of the church. It is not written that he is the head of the CC, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptism, Church of Christ, Assembly of God and so on and so forth.

IT is written that he is the head of the church. And what makes the church is the part of Christ that is in the heart of every believer.

I believe the reason we have seen so much splintering in the faith resulting in the multitude of different and diverse religions is because of the corruption of the Word of God.

As for the reason the CC had control for nearly many decades is by the use of force which is not the ways of the Lord.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I would say that you are right, it is highly unlikely that your preacher and the Vicar of Christ would meet and discuss scripture. Do you feel that your peacher is on the same spiritual level as Pope Benedict XVI?

If my preacher was to sit and discuss scripture with your pope, one of two things would happen.

The pope would be moved to agree or would become angry to the point of wanting my preacher dead.

 

[heiscominginthe]

All Catholics are taught that we must be born again ( anothen - from above) to see the Kingdom.
This is nothing new. We all believe it… so why ask the question?
Many Blessings,
Doolin

---

Being taught a man must be born again and understanding what being born again are two different things.

The reason why I ask this question is my hope we can find some common ground on which to build upon.

 

[JRKH]

Being water baptized into the church does not save a man. The man must be born again before he is baptized in water. Being baptized in water does not make a man part of the family of Christ. The man must first be born again.

I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Sometimes it is better to establish a link or solid block on which to build from.

I have asked many catholics what it is to be born again and the most common answer I get is being baptized into the church. While that answer is correct, their understanding is being baptized by water, not of blood.

When a man is born again through faith, he is baptized into Christ (Romans 6) through his blood. It is this baptism that makes a man a member of the body of Christ.

Water baptism is given in the name of Jesus. It is symbolic of the baptism that saves us. Only God and the man knows what happens in the heart of a man when he is born again. When the man receives water baptism, he is confessing to the world that he has been born again, saved from death through the Son of God, thus giving God the glory he so rightfully deserves. The water being symbolic of the grave and when the man rises from the water, it is symbolic of the resurrection. It gives the man a good conscience toward God.

1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I’m still not sure what your concern is in all of this but I highlighted the one section for only one reason.
Getting answers from individual catholics is not the same as learning what the Church actually teaches on a given subject. That is why I have directed and provided links to Catholic Sources - So you may know the True Church Teachings.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Jesus is the head of the church. It is not written that he is the head of the CC, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptism, Church of Christ, Assembly of God and so on and so forth.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding. the Catholic Church is not a “denomination” on some equal footing with the other churches you name. The Catholic Church can be traced clear back to the Apostles while the others are tracable back only 500 or so years and ALL have their roots in Catholicsim.

IT is written that he is the head of the church. And what makes the church is the part of Christ that is in the heart of every believer.

I don’t think I really see a problem with this statement. However, one can truly LOVE their country and yet recognize the need for authority IN that country.

I believe the reason we have seen so much splintering in the faith resulting in the multitude of different and diverse religions is because of the corruption of the Word of God.

I agree, and that is what teh Church has been trying to get the non-catholics to understand.

As for the reason the CC had control for nearly many decades is by the use of force which is not the ways of the Lord.

You asked me for references to the DC’s in the NT and this I have provided.
Now I ask you for names and dates of these supposed purges by the Early Church.
Where are the writings? Where is it recorded?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If my preacher was to sit and discuss scripture with your pope, one of two things would happen.

The pope would be moved to agree or would become angry to the point of wanting my preacher dead.

I don’t know how to respond to such a stupid and totally ignorant comment as the one you have made above!!!

You have lost a great deal of credibility with me by this remark and clearly demonstrated once again your own ignorance of the Catholic Church.

In the first place, ANY well catachized Catholic Apologist would likely make mincemeat of your preacher’s positions, from both the theological and historical perspectives. After all I am not even well trained and I have placed point after point before you for which you have no solid defence.
Secondly the Holy Father would most likely be moved to pity and promise to pray for the soul of your preacher.

In no case would the Holy Father wish for anyone’s Blood.

Father forgive him for he knows not what he does.

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

The Catholic Church can be traced clear back to the Apostles while the others are tracable back only 500 or so years and ALL have their roots in Catholicsim.

Wrong. The term catholic Christians entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria …as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.” This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus.[8] It established catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Wiki encyclopedia

In no case would the Holy Father wish for anyone’s Blood.

Study your own church history.

As for the pope having more knowledge then my preacher, say what you will. Only God knows what is in the hearts of men. Just because the CC has volumes and volumes of interpretation of their bible does not make it right.

It is man who complicates the simplicy of God.

As for this thread, it is finished.

2 Cor. 4: 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[Doolin]

Being taught a man must be born again and understanding what being born again are two different things.

The reason why I ask this question is my hope we can find some common ground on which to build upon.

Common Ground. Cool. Well if we look at Johns Gospel we find that the word use there is a greek word “anothen” which can mean “from above” or again. Jesus is misunderstood to have stated “again” when he meant “from above” the result is that we must be born in the Spirit. The Spirit is seen as descending on Jesus when he is baptized with water.
Jesus is also later described by John the Baptist as the one “anothen” or from above later in Chapter 4 of John. John the Baptist followers are upset that Jesus and his Apostles are baptizing so many people with water and John makes the statement of Jesus being “From Above”. So the answer is simple. Jesus is saying that we will be Baptized with Water and Spirit. This is the Baptism with water that all Christians use. So… look up the word “anothen” and see how it is used in John. Let me know what you think of this word. Yeah… Anothen - from above.
I love the Gospel of John.
Many Blessings.
Doolin

 

[JRKH]

As for the reason the CC had control for nearly many decades is by the use of force which is not the ways of the Lord.

Let me ask you this - What was Paul/Saul doing before his conversion to Christ.
Was he not arresting and killing Christians at the behest of the Jews?
What Group was responsible for plotting to Crucify Jesus?

You say that “force is not the way of the Lord”, as a reason to discount The Church and her teachings, then you accept the Jewish version of the OT that was codified after the time of Christ. If “force is not the way of the Lord” then the Jews were just as guilty of that particular sin as you believe the early church was.

 

[JRKH]

Wrong. The term catholic Christians entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of "that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria …as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches." This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus.[8] It established catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Wiki encyclopedia

Note that this statement declares that it is the religion delivered from the Apostle Peter!!!, and preserved by faithful tradition.

Believe what you will - But your own arguments consistantly undercut you.

Study your own church history.

It would be more beneficial it YOU Studied actual Chruch history.

As for the pope having more knowledge then my preacher, say what you will. Only God knows what is in the hearts of men. Just because the CC has volumes and volumes of interpretation of their bible does not make it right.

It is man who complicates the simplicy of God.

And Just because someone thinks they have some “insight” that others lack doesn’t make it right either.

I will accept and remain with the 2000 year history of consistant magisterial teaching of God’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

As for this thread, it is finished.

As you wish.
We have done our best to show you your errors. We have planed the seeds.
I will leave it in the hands of Our Dear Lord and God’s Holy Spirit to guide you.

May God be with you and lead you home
READ Mt 18: 15-18.

Peace
James

 

[NHInsider]

Wrong. The term catholic Christians entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria …as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.” This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus.[8] It established catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Wiki encyclopedia

Um, are you just ignoring Ignatius of Antioch’s use of the word in about 110?

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Epistle to the Smyrneans)

and in the same letter, btw

And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God—of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest.

keep in mind this is a man who was 3rd bishop of Antioch, who was only “1-degree of separation” (to use the modern expression) from John the Apostle. And he’s using the term “catholic church” as if everyone knows what he means.

Theodosius is distinguishing between the authentic Church, which he calls “catholic” and the various heretical sects. Obviously he’s not inventing the term, he’s denying that heretics can claim to be catholic.

 

[JRKH]

Um, are you just ignoring Ignatius of Antioch’s use of the word in about 110?

and in the same letter, btw

keep in mind this is a man who was 3rd bishop of Antioch, who was only “1-degree of separation” (to use the modern expression) from John the Apostle. And he’s using the term “catholic church” as if everyone knows what he means.

Theodosius is distinguishing between the authentic Church, which he calls “catholic” and the various heretical sects. Obviously he’s not inventing the term, he’s denying that heretics can claim to be catholic.

Thank you for this clarification.
What surprises me is how “heiscoming…” can read the above and see that the Church thus recognized by the Emperor is the very Church that Peter Preched and was held “universally”, that is Catholic. It is right in the piece he posted.

Peace
James