What does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant?

[heiscominginthe]

We were given the Charge to listen to and Abide by the Church’s teachings (Mt 18:15-18
That Church then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and exersizing its authority established the canon of Scripture.
What the Jews were or were not accepting is of little relevance to what we as Christians should be accepting.

That Church then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and exersizing its authority established the canon of Scripture.

So did the church write doctrine? Is there a bible translation that is perfect?

How anyone can believe they have authority over what was or was not the history of a people is very arrogant. The Jews lived the OT. Who should not it better then they when it comes to what is scripture and what is not, with the exception of the NT. I believe that many of the canons not accepted in the NT, such as the gospel of Thomas may very well have been written in order to corrupt or cause devision in the faith, which may very well of come by the hands of some Jews in an attempt to destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[JRKH]

So did the church write doctrine? Is there a bible translation that is perfect?

Yes The Church did write doctrine. From the time of the Apostles when Peter, Paul, James, Jude, et al began writing letters they were recording the Doctrines of the Christian Church as inspired by God. The Gospel writers likewise wrote Church doctrine as they were recording the story of Jesus Ministry, Passion and resurection.
As to whether there is a Bible translation that is perfect, I believe the answer is no. The reason I say this is that there is no human language that is completely immune to twisting and turning and misinterpretation. This is why God’s Word is a Person and not a book written in human language. That Word which is Christ is THE perfect word that we must seek. The Bible is the best that our limited human language can supply but yet we must always proof and reproof ourselves and our understandings of scripture against the history of Church teachings. Thus we remain grounded in obedience to the Authoritative Church and true to the intent of the inspired writers, and true to God’s will for us.

How anyone can believe they have authority over what was or was not the history of a people is very arrogant. The Jews lived the OT. Who should not it better then they when it comes to what is scripture and what is not, with the exception of the NT. I believe that many of the canons not accepted in the NT, such as the gospel of Thomas may very well have been written in order to corrupt or cause devision in the faith, which may very well of come by the hands of some Jews in an attempt to destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ.

No one will dispute that the Jews have every right to their own history. I would not dare to tell the Jewish people what they should accept as Scripture. But I would also not argue that The Church is bound to accept the Jewish view of Scripture. Especially when that argument places the entire Christian Bible canon in doubt.
I note that you have studiously avoided dealing with the validity of the Church councils that determined the Bible. You have studiously avoided the question of whether they were Spirit Protected or not. This is not a complicated issue of “how the canon developed” but rather is as simple as yes or no. Was the Canon of the Bible correctly determined at the Church Councils in the 390’s AD?
If yes then that includes the DC’s if no then the entire canon becomes suspect.
I don’t see anything complcated in that.

As to why they selected or rejected teh books they did is not my concern here. The Church has made the decision and I abide by it for I am a follower of Christ and, just as in Acts, I abide by the decision of the Church councils acting under the Protection of Christ.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The problem with the debate is as I said before, the amount of time to get through all that has brought us to today could not be contained in a forum. Certainly there are many things we would agree on, but there also would be many things we disagree on.

I certainly agree with this. But as I said above, the idea of whether the councils were protected from error is a simple one.

As for defense of the KJ, how much different is it from the vulgate? I don’t believe it is that different with the exception of the books not included in the KJ.

Well I am no expert on the Vulgate or the KJV for that matter. In fact I really don’t have a problem with the KJV in so far as it goes. What I have a problem with is the idea that people accept the Bible, without knowing from where they got it. By that I mean the human agencies that God used to get the Bible into our hands.

To me, it is more dire to confront not the Word, but the interpretation of the Word.

Certainly - and that is why I stick with Holy Mother Church.

As I said before, I believe two events occurred that changed the shape of God’s christianity to that of man’s christianity. And that is baptism and how it was to be administered in the church along with the theologian, philosoper created trinity doctrine.

Forgive my ignorance but when did these two events occur?

Was it the will of our Lord to go torture and even kill people with disagreed with his teachings. No.

That men will sin - even in the pursuit of what they believe to be a good cause has been the history of man. That does not make God’s Church wrong.

So something had to happen in the early church that changed the messege of our Lord from loving one to the faith to threatening on to the faith.

Actually the message of the Church never did change. Unfortunately sinners both in and out of the Church caused much harm. Yet God has protected Her for 2 millenia.
You mention how long it would take to go through the development of the canon - How much longer would it take to disect all the history of the Church. We are problably better off ALL declaring “mea culpa”, forgive each other and move on.

And I believe that baptism and the trinity doctrine was in part a moving away from the faith.

Again I would have to ask when these events occurred?

Peace
James

 

[severntofall]

Sigh. . . you really don’t see the absurdity of saying that a large city is in the vicinity of a small village?

The text doesn’t say that there were other towns and villages. By the time of the final redaction of Matthew, the author/redactor’s geography may have been pretty vague and the language may reflect this. But in fact the text as it stands could easily mean “the small village of Bethlehem and outlying farms within a couple of miles.” It’s much more likely to mean that than “the small village of Bethlehem and the center of the Jewish world, which I didn’t bother to mention by name but which is a sort of suburb of this small village.”

Edwin

Sigh…you don’t seem to understand the absurdity of saying that a city cannot be within close proximity (the vicinity) of a town.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Yes The Church did write doctrine. From the time of the Apostles when Peter, Paul, James, Jude, et al began writing letters they were recording the Doctrines of the Christian Church as inspired by God. The Gospel writers likewise wrote Church doctrine as they were recording the story of Jesus Ministry, Passion and resurection.
As to whether there is a Bible translation that is perfect, I believe the answer is no. The reason I say this is that there is no human language that is completely immune to twisting and turning and misinterpretation. This is why God’s Word is a Person and not a book written in human language. That Word which is Christ is THE perfect word that we must seek. The Bible is the best that our limited human language can supply but yet we must always proof and reproof ourselves and our understandings of scripture against the history of Church teachings. Thus we remain grounded in obedience to the Authoritative Church and true to the intent of the inspired writers, and true to God’s will for us.

Although you are not right, you are not wrong on who wrote the bible. It was the Holy Spirit of God through believers that got his Word written.

You are not correct although when you state that there is not perfect Word of God. It is a trivial thing for the God of all creation to inspire his Word into the hearts of men. All that is reqiured is for a man to have faith and be submissive to the will of the Father.

One of the most damaging lies of the devil against the church is that it is impossible for God to get his Word written perfectly using imperfect man.

Especially when that argument places the entire Christian Bible canon in doubt.

What exactly is in doubt? I believe the KJ is the infallible Word of God. I believe it has proven itself time and again. Although the KJ and the Vulgate are not far from eachother translationally, there are differences.

I believe the greek used in the KJ was older then the greek used in the vulgate, making the KJ closer to the actual truth. I believe if you search it out, you will find this to be so.

As for what is in doubt, the KJ has been under attack not just by those claiming the Vulgate to be superior, but has been under attack by basically all other translations, even many the Vulgate would view as corrupt.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

One of the most damaging lies of the devil against the church is that it is impossible for God to get his Word written perfectly using imperfect man.

Lies? That the Bible is not infallible is fact. You can read it for yourself and, if you’re honest, note over 100 contradictions and historical inaccuracies. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with viewing the Bible as fallible because the New Testament is not meant to be a biography of Jesus. It is meant to be a declaration of faith by several men with their own individual perspectives.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
As I said before, I believe two events occurred that changed the shape of God’s christianity to that of man’s christianity. And that is baptism and how it was to be administered in the church along with the theologian, philosoper created trinity doctrine.

Forgive my ignorance but when did these two events occur?

Usually when asked this question, I ask a person firstly if they understand them. Most people today are taught if it says baptism in scripture, it is talking of water baptism. Yet, that is not true. The scriptures talk of three baptisms, but only one saves a man.

As for the trinity doctrine, I believe the catholic church views it as one God, three persons. I don’t feel that is correct. And I believe I can prove it using the Word of God.

Do I believe Jesus is God, most certainly. Yet, how he obtained that authority, what actually occurred to make it not robbery to call him God most don’t understand.

As to when the trinity doctrine came into existance was 325 AD. As for when the baptisms became changed, I would have to search again to find the answer. I believe it was through catholic archieves that revealed the answer. If memory serves me, I believe it was in the 400 AD time frame. Without reseaching again, I am unsure.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Lies? That the Bible is not infallible is fact. You can read it for yourself and, if you’re honest, note over 100 contradictions and historical inaccuracies. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with viewing the Bible as fallible because the New Testament is not meant to be a biography of Jesus. It is meant to be a declaration of faith by several men with their own individual perspectives.

Hi EP and welcome to the conversation. I have had many make claims as to contradictions in the bible, but without merit.

It is meant to be a declaration of faith by several men with their own individual perspectives

The apostles took great care in not premitting individual perspectives. That is what has brought confusion upon the church today. The apostles nurtured the early church which was made up of several different parts throughout the regions making sure the same doctrine and understanding was established in each so that they would all be in one accord.

When Peter brought in his own perspective on circumsision, he was quickly confronted by Paul in that putting the burden of circumcion of the flesh on the gentiles was not the way of the Lord. He stressed that it was the circumsision of the heart that was important which is salvation.

Now, often times when one reads the Word of God, especially those young in the faith, they read things they believe may contradict eachother. Yet, as they grow in faith, the vail is removed on that which they had believed was a contradiction and they gain understanding, realizing it was not a contradiction at all.

So what may seem confusing at first, will over time become vividly clear. For it is written, that God is not a God of confusion.

 

[JRKH]

Although you are not right, you are not wrong on who wrote the bible. It was the Holy Spirit of God through believers that got his Word written.

You are not correct although when you state that there is not perfect Word of God. It is a trivial thing for the God of all creation to inspire his Word into the hearts of men. All that is reqiured is for a man to have faith and be submissive to the will of the Father.

One of the most damaging lies of the devil against the church is that it is impossible for God to get his Word written perfectly using imperfect man.

We might actually be able to have some good give and take if you would stay on the same page - You asked me it I thought that there was a “Perfect” Bible Translation. I repeat your question here for clarity.
Originally Posted by heiscominginthe
So did the church write doctrine? Is there a bible translation that is perfect?
This is the question I answered and I stand by that answer. Any Translation of the Bible can be twisted - And the KJV is no exception.
In your respoonse above you are talking about God impressing His Word upon the hearts of men. Certainly He can do this - And He wouldn’t even need the Bible to do it.

What exactly is in doubt? I believe the KJ is the infallible Word of God. I believe it has proven itself time and again. Although the KJ and the Vulgate are not far from eachother translationally, there are differences.

I have asked you the question more than once and as clearly as I can. Please go back and review the posts - or just continue to ignore the question.
As far as a comparison of the KJV to the Vulgate - certainly there is a huge error in the KJV because it does not contain ALL of the Inspired Scripture Given by God to men. So don’t see how you can call it inerrant.

I believe the greek used in the KJ was older then the greek used in the vulgate, making the KJ closer to the actual truth. I believe if you search it out, you will find this to be so.

You may be right - I don’t know, But as you pointed out earlier it is the interpretation of Scripture that is important and The Caholic Church has that down pat. They have been at it from the beginning and the promised protection of God.

As for what is in doubt, the KJ has been under attack not just by those claiming the Vulgate to be superior, but has been under attack by basically all other translations, even many the Vulgate would view as corrupt.

The KJV is indeed a widely used version. As I have said before I don’t have any real problen with the KJV as far as it goes.
My effort has been to lay before you the logic and consistancy of the Catholic Church canon - and to illustrate the absurdity of accepting one part of the canon from one source and another part of the canon from another sourse.
If you do not wish to acknowledge that, then there is little else I can say. I will just pray that the Holy Spirit eventually shows you where His true Church and Fullness of Truth reside.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Usually when asked this question, I ask a person firstly if they understand them. Most people today are taught if it says baptism in scripture, it is talking of water baptism. Yet, that is not true. The scriptures talk of three baptisms, but only one saves a man.

As for the trinity doctrine, I believe the catholic church views it as one God, three persons. I don’t feel that is correct. And I believe I can prove it using the Word of God.

Do I believe Jesus is God, most certainly. Yet, how he obtained that authority, what actually occurred to make it not robbery to call him God most don’t understand.

As to when the trinity doctrine came into existance was 325 AD. As for when the baptisms became changed, I would have to search again to find the answer. I believe it was through catholic archieves that revealed the answer. If memory serves me, I believe it was in the 400 AD time frame. Without reseaching again, I am unsure.

OK,
I am not so much concerned with the particulars of the things you claim were changed as I am in the timeframe. In both cases you place these errors before the time of the Church Councils that set the Canon of Scripture.
So - If the Church (and at the time there was only one) was teaching error in 325, it had become apostate. This means that Jesus failed to protect the Church as he promised. In this case any Church council after 325 AD was an apostate council and ANYTHING coming out of it is suspect. Therefore the ENTIRE canon of scripture - set in the 390’s at Hippo and Carthage - is suspect. (Am I being clear enough)

Thus it can be shown that in using the KJV, or even a Catholic Version Bible you are using an Apostate Bible.

If you believe that the Church was Apostate before the Bible was compiled, then you need to go back to the beginning and reappraise EVERY book and letter that was written during that time.

Peace
James

 

[Pete_Holter]

IN BOLD ABOVE: That does not mean the rest is not inerrant. See THIS POST.

Correct. It also means the Church does not require us to believe the rest is inerrant in matters not relating to the truth necessary for our salvation.

Good evening, my fellow Catholics!

I’ve been posting about this issue here. I left the thread for a while and came back here. The last few posts that I added today may help you.

May the LORD be with you!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[heiscominginthe]

As for interpretation of doctrine, it was that reason why I asked you James about baptism and the trinity. If these two alone were compromised, and I believe they were since those claiming authority in the catholic church decided to move from what was written to their own interpretation, then the damage to the faith could cause the movement of the Holy Spirit to deminish. Thus creating a church that had a form of godliness, but denying the Holy Spirit.

I am sorry, but if the early church believed that water baptism was to be given in the name of Jesus, the catholic popes did not have the authority to say otherwise.

Let us take the baptism of children for instance. Not one place in scripture says children are to be baptized, which makes sense since children are innocent in the eyes of the Lord.

The excuse that children are under the yoke of original sin is correct, but baptizing them does nothing. For just as all men die in the flesh, childen die in the flesh because of original sin. All mankind will face this death. Yet, because a child is alive in his spirit, since his spirit has not been slain because of the knowledge of the law, if he dies, his spirit goes to be with God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

So - If the Church (and at the time there was only one) was teaching error in 325, it had become apostate. This means that Jesus failed to protect the Church as he promised. In this case any Church council after 325 AD was an apostate council and ANYTHING coming out of it is suspect. Therefore the ENTIRE canon of scripture - set in the 390’s at Hippo and Carthage - is suspect.

’

Throughout all history the Lord reserved a remnant that would not move from the faith.

Think about this for a moment. According to the Word of God, few will make it to heaven. We live in a world today where christianity is the largest religion. Yet, if all who say they are christian are christian, then a great multitude, not a few will make it into the kingdom of God. This in itself would be contrary to the Word of God.

Now, if the church was teaching things contrary to the Word of God, those men who followed God and not men would disagree with church doctrine. If you study the history of the catholic church, persecution against those who disagreed with this doctrine occured often.

Any religion that kills claiming it does so in the name of God is not of God. God wants men to come to him because they want to, not because they have to. Salvation is a matter of the heart. It is a love that goes far beyond human comprehension.

All God wants is for men to realize they cannot live a life without sin. All God wants is for us to say we are sorry and ask for his forgiveness.

 

[JRKH]

As for interpretation of doctrine, it was that reason why I asked you James about baptism and the trinity. If these two alone were compromised, and I believe they were since those claiming authority in the catholic church decided to move from what was written to their own interpretation, then the damage to the faith could cause the movement of the Holy Spirit to deminish. Thus creating a church that had a form of godliness, but denying the Holy Spirit.

I am sorry, but if the early church believed that water baptism was to be given in the name of Jesus, the catholic popes did not have the authority to say otherwise.

You see this is the very crux of the problem.
First is that you are willing to accept a canon of scripture that was canonized by what you consider to be an apostate Church.
Second is that you believe that The Catholic Church is somehow seperate from “the Early Church”. both of these things are grossly in error.

Let us take the baptism of children for instance. Not one place in scripture says children are to be baptized, which makes sense since children are innocent in the eyes of the Lord.

The excuse that children are under the yoke of original sin is correct, but baptizing them does nothing. For just as all men die in the flesh, childen die in the flesh because of original sin. All mankind will face this death. Yet, because a child is alive in his spirit, since his spirit has not been slain because of the knowledge of the law, if he dies, his spirit goes to be with God.

I am sure otherw sill be better able than I to dbate the specifics of your doctrinal error. For myself I do not feel qualified to go there. I am blessed to have the services of 2000 years of learned men of faith who have carefully and prayerfully discerned the Truths as The Father and The Son wish them understood.

Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, knew full well what it taught just as it knew full well what it was including in the canon of the Bible. These two things do not conflict. If you think they do then there is something wrong in your understanding. Which I find evident in the fact that you will not give, or even consider, a straight answer to the direct question about whether the councils were spirit guided or not. Instead you prefer to try and switch the subject.

By the Way - Are you Mormon by any chance?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

’

Throughout all history the Lord reserved a remnant that would not move from the faith.

Think about this for a moment. According to the Word of God, few will make it to heaven. We live in a world today where christianity is the largest religion. Yet, if all who say they are christian are christian, then a great multitude, not a few will make it into the kingdom of God. This in itself would be contrary to the Word of God.

The fact that many who call themselves Christian will likely not make it into heaven does not mean that the Church and her teachings are apostate. It just doesn’t follow. After all how many times did the Jewish people fall away from God yet He maintained His covenent with them.
Yes there may only be a remnant that survive, but that remnant will be within the Church and not outsicde of it - For Our God is a God of Mercy and Constancy. He made a covenant with His Church to Protect it. He will do so.

Now, if the church was teaching things contrary to the Word of God, those men who followed God and not men would disagree with church doctrine. If you study the history of the catholic church, persecution against those who disagreed with this doctrine occured often.

If you study Protestant History you will find the same thing. St Thomas More was not excecuted by the Catholic Church. Running down this trail only leads to further confusion and hurt. Let’s not go there

Any religion that kills claiming it does so in the name of God is not of God. God wants men to come to him because they want to, not because they have to. Salvation is a matter of the heart. It is a love that goes far beyond human comprehension.

I suggest that you go back and read your OT and see if there wasn’t killing in the name of God contained there.

All God wants is for men to realize they cannot live a life without sin. All God wants is for us to say we are sorry and ask for his forgiveness.

Yup
God is a merciful God
That is why the Catholic Church has taught this very thing since the Apostlic times.

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

You see this is the very crux of the problem.
First is that you are willing to accept a canon of scripture that was canonized by what you consider to be an apostate Church.
Second is that you believe that The Catholic Church is somehow seperate from “the Early Church”. both of these things are grossly in error.

How many times did God use nations to bring judgment upon Israel? Is it impossible for God to use men both good and bad to fulfill his will?

As for the Catholic church, I wonder when they forgot that the church is not the building, but all who believe?

Yes, I feel that the Catholic church has made many mistakes. Yet, all men are sinners and let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You must understand that about three to four years ago, the Lord urged me to start spreading his Word on the internet. I was going to go to the lost, who had need of salvation. Yet, the Lord told me to go the the churches instead.

It is not my desire or the Lord’s to move men from him, but bring me to him.

By the Way - Are you Mormon by any chance?

No James, I am not mormon. I am not protestant. I stand of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[heiscominginthe]

The fact that many who call themselves Christian will likely not make it into heaven does not mean that the Church and her teachings are apostate. It just doesn’t follow. After all how many times did the Jewish people fall away from God yet He maintained His covenent with them.
Yes there may only be a remnant that survive, but that remnant will be within the Church and not outsicde of it - For Our God is a God of Mercy and Constancy. He made a covenant with His Church to Protect it. He will do so.

What does it mean that a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of God?

Quote:
Any religion that kills claiming it does so in the name of God is not of God. God wants men to come to him because they want to, not because they have to. Salvation is a matter of the heart. It is a love that goes far beyond human comprehension.

I suggest that you go back and read your OT and see if there wasn’t killing in the name of God contained there.

To do as you claim is to question God. You must understand that part of the reason God had people killed was because they attacked Israel. Another reason is because there was still remnants of the giants who came from the fallen angels mingling with men. So God wanted them destroyed.

Yet, mostly remember this, we are talking about two very, very different covenants. What did Jesus say? He said love our enemies. Bless those who hurt us. He also said those who live by the sword will die by the sword.

The true church will not go and kill in the name of God. The true church tries to save men. While many of the false churches force men to convert of be killed.

It is not my will to condemn the catholic church, but to awaken it. I believe too much emphesis is put on paganism and things of the flesh.

 

[JJ59]

No, the book of genesis clearly provides a order of events in each account and they contradict one another (not to mention all known science).

An interesting point to make here is that the G of Matt claims that Herod ordered the massacre of all boys under 2 within Bethlehem and it’s vicinity. Jerusalem, which was the closest inhabited location near Bethlehem and no more than a 2 two hour walk away (6 miles) from Bethlehem would easily have been within the vicinity. Again, it’s very difficult to image that such an event would have escaped the notice of historians not to mention the other Gospel authors. This event you have gone a very long way towards demonstrating the divinity of Jesus and only Matthew found it worthy of mention. Let’s not forget that the nativity description found in Luke contradicts that of Matt…in other words, they both cannot be true. One might be true, but at least one account is a lie.

Yes, Holy Men rising from the grave and returning to Jerusalem and nobody but the author of Matthew noticed! Now, all four mention the sky turning dark (a common occurrence barely worthy of mention) which could have been caused by cloud cover or an eclipse (assuming that it actually happened hint: it didn’t). Ultimately an event which is not unheard of gets mentioned by all four gospels. All four also mention a piece of cloth ripping upon his death (again didn’t actually happen) but even if it did it would be hardly an unheard of event. However, only Matthew finds dead holy men rising from their tombs (which all simultaneously cracked open) and hanging out with people in Jerusalem worthy of a mention. Seriously, an event unrivaled in the annuls of human history, holy men rising in mass, and only Matthew mentions it!

Maybe it would help if you actually addressed the arguments provided in the link instead of just restating yours, we’d get somewhere.

Science? It’s poetry, not a textbook. The Bible wasn’t written yesterday. There are many, many different styles it is written in. Of course, many people, including you, ignore any of that because you want to see a book full of mistakes.

According to the 1st century historian Josephus, Herod did many atrocious deeds. Why should historians mention such an event, small when compared to the other terrible things Herod did? I mean, in a tiny town like Bethlehem, how many boys under age two could there be? 5 or 10?

And how does it show Jesus’ divinity? Compared to some of Jesus other wonders, getting out of Bethlehem before a slaughter seems pretty tame!

Please explain how the 2 birth accounts are so irreconcilable.

Here’s another link (Please read it first!) tektonics.org/af/asilent.html

Your idea that it’s “an even unrivaled in the annuls of human history”, is built upon a few assumptions.

1. How many were raised. Matthew’s “many” is a tricky word. It could be anything from 10 to 10 thousand!
2. What their bodies were like. Natural, mortal bodies like Lazarus? Natural-looking but immortal bodies?
3. Whether or not they appeared to just anyone. Consider a passage like Acts 10:40-41: “But God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” Maybe they appeared to just Jews, you think?

God Bless.

 

[Contarini]

Sigh…you don’t seem to understand the absurdity of saying that a city cannot be within close proximity (the vicinity) of a town.

The Greek says “en tois oriois autes.” The word “oria” (plural of “orion”) means most literally “boundaries.” It’s used to describe the region surrounding a town–a region which would normally come under the jurisdiction of a town and would supply it with food, etc. The text does not say “every place near Bethlehem.” It’s clearly describing Bethlehem and the rural areas surrounding it–it makes absolutely no sense for it to be talking about Jerusalem. I’m quite willing to grant the strong possibility that the author of Matthew had no understanding of just how small Bethlehem was and how odd the phrase sounds. But I maintain that by no stretch of the imagination can this term refer to Jerusalem.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

I apolgize for not responding sooner. As I have mentioned before, my dear wife has Alzheimers and it is difficult for me to check in regularly.

I’m not sure what any of your responses has to do with the section of my post that you quoted, or why you refuse me the curtuousy of a direct answer to my direct questions about the validity of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, but so be it.

How many times did God use nations to bring judgment upon Israel? Is it impossible for God to use men both good and bad to fulfill his will?

God can and does use whomever He chooses and however He chooses to accomplish His Salvic Plan. However, God is also constant. For you will note that, while God may have used outside nations to bring Judgement upon Isreal, and thus He are assured that He will never abandon His covenant with His Church. He did not abandon His covenant with Isreal until that Covenant came to completion through Jesus Christ. Then The Father, acting through the Son established a New Covenant - A Church Built upon The Rock (Kepha) instead of a “nation” - so that all might be able to conme to the fullness of truth. By this covenant with His Holy People, and through the offices of His Church, He calls us to Him.
Since He promised His protection to His Church, and Gave it Authority to Bind and Loose,it is impossible that The Church can dogmatically teach error.
Does that mean that those in the Church cannot make mistakes? Of course not for the members of The Church are all sinners. But the Teachings of the Church, Bound and Loosed, are the teachings of Christ Himself.

As for the Catholic church, I wonder when they forgot that the church is not the building, but all who believe?

The Catholic Church NEVER forgot what the Church is however many non-catholics have. The Church is the Body of Christ. All who believe are members of that Body. But in any Body different members different functions and All are controlled by a Central Authority. Not a “Written Authority” as in the OT Law, but a spiritual authority built upon Men and Guided by the Holy Spirit.
Thus in the Body of Christ the Central Authority is the Brain - The Offices of the Church. A visible - discectable Brain guided by the Holy Spirit…

Thus did Christ establish an Authority upon Earth to act in His name. That Authority IS The Catholic Church. I would suggest that you read Matthew 18:15-18 - Then Read Acts 15:1-29. After you read those passages tell me whether the passage in Acts does or does not demonstrate the command of Christ that we see in Matthew.

Finally I would ask you to ponder this.
I can show in the Bible that “the Church”, and not “Scripture” is considered the authority over personal interpretation. It can further be demonstrated that the Early Church fathers (all before the canonization of the Bible) Also considered the Church to be Authoritative.
Can you show me clear NT passages, AND writings of the Early Church, that demonstrate that Christ never intended His Church to be Authoritative?
I don’t mean that you should tell me where I am misinterpreting Matthew 16 or Acts 15 or Matthew 18, but rather show me clear Biblical statements, backed up by Early Church Scolars that solidly demonstrate that Christ did not mean there to be an Authoritative Church.

Yes, I feel that the Catholic church has made many mistakes. Yet, all men are sinners and let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I am glad to hear you say this for it hopefully shows that you also see that you are capable of mistakes and thus you may yet see your errors.
While I would never argue that those in the Catholic Church have made mistakes (and that includes Popes) this is not the same as “The Church” making mistakes, or teaching error.
Example - A Country has a set of Laws, well thought out and just. A person or persons in the Government acts contrary to those Laws, Is the Government (The Laws) corrupt or are the people corrupt. Thus it is with the Church - The Dogmatic Teachings are correct. That does not mean that every person acts in perfect accord with those teachings.

You must understand that about three to four years ago, the Lord urged me to start spreading his Word on the internet. I was going to go to the lost, who had need of salvation. Yet, the Lord told me to go the the churches instead.

It is not my desire or the Lord’s to move men from him, but bring me to him.

Well If God has called yout to go to the Churches instead, allow me to help you do just that. For here you are only talking to the laymen toiling in the vinyard.
If you would speak to those in power and influence allow me to provide you with some links.
The Vatican The official wesite of the Catholic Church

USCCB (US conference of Catholic Bishops) The Official websie of the Catholic Bishops in the US

EWTN The Highly influentiai and Global Catholic Television Network

Father Corapi A Highly respected and educated Theologen and Speaker

Dr. Scott Hahn A Highly respected and educated Catholic Convert

Marcus Grodi A Non-Catholic Seminary Educated Minister who Converted to Catholicism.

When you have made contact with these and convinced them of their error, you will have made great progress in your mission. If your mission to the Churches is indeed true you will do well to convince these persons so that Christ’s Church can correct Her course.
As for us laymen here at CAF, we will do our best to defend our faith as taught to us by our Spirit Protected Church.

No James, I am not mormon. I am not protestant. I stand of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thank you but while you say that you are not protestant, you profess many of the protestant errors.

Peace
James