What does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant?

[JRKH]

heiscominginthe,

I wish to apologize for may remardk above about not answering your questions. I will continue dialoge with you for as long as you like to try and provide you with as acurate information as I can.
You obviously have given these things some thought, but unfortunately have come to some very erronious conclusions. Given time study and prayer, I think you will come to understand this. I wish to help.

Finally - While I don’t feel qualified to answer your concerns about the Baptism issue, if you would like to post your concerns I will try to find some answers for you. Or perhaps you would like to start a thread on it and get (name removed by moderator)ut from several other members of the board.

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

He was a heretic.

Here, I’ll clarify my question: could you please tell us (ie, give a list thereof) which remnants, between the fourth century and the fifteenth, you consider to have “stayed steadfast unto God’s word”?

Regardless of what I write, you won’t believe.

Yet, let us suppose we have a truth. Now over the years, this truth is being tagged with stipulations. How long before this truth is no longer true? With enough stipulations, a truth can be turned into a lie.

Now back to your question. How many people were put to death for not complying to the doctrine, the interpretation of the CC? Why would these people accept death over doctrine?

I believe just as it was in the fourth and fifth centuries, it is today. You have a remnant who refuse to corrupt the gospel of Christ. And just as it was then, it will be today when men will stand on the Word of God and be put to death for it.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Finally - While I don’t feel qualified to answer your concerns about the Baptism issue, if you would like to post your concerns I will try to find some answers for you. Or perhaps you would like to start a thread on it and get (name removed by moderator)ut from several other members of the board.

I love you James. As quickly as you saddened my heart, you made it happy.

James, I believe you sincerely believe in your religion and I respect that. I know what I offer goes against much of what your church offers. You have given me links on your churches stand and I appreciate that. Yet, when I go to these links, all I see are the words of men offering their interpretation.

I don’t require anything other then the Word of God. I establish all answers through the unction of the Holy Spirit and God’s Word.

I am no better then you James. If I am the least to enter the kingdom of God I will be elated.

It is written that a little leaven leaveneth the entire lump.

I believe if a little becomes corrupt, if even one word is changed, it can corrupt all.

So two of the things I have a problem with in the CC is baptism and the trinity doctrine. I believe both have affected the church in such a way it brought about the many, many splinter groups or religions we have today.

Just know James I love you and it is not my desire to offend you, but the Word of God does offend. If a man is not made known he is a sinner, how can he turn from sin? I am just using that as an example. It is not directed at you James.

 

[Doolin]

heiscominginthe
I believe you will see much of these books are more fairytale not scripture.

Thanks for the dialogue, it is so good to see us attempting to share when some views are so different. Again I think it interesting that the DC’ would be described as “fairytale” when they were included in the first edition of the KJV of the bible. So odd to me that they go from actually being in a Popular Protestant Bible and then not even on the same par as good Christian literature, as you have indicated.
Many Blessings,
Doolin

 

[JRKH]

Regardless of what I write, you won’t believe.

Yet, let us suppose we have a truth. Now over the years, this truth is being tagged with stipulations. How long before this truth is no longer true? With enough stipulations, a truth can be turned into a lie.

Now back to your question. How many people were put to death for not complying to the doctrine, the interpretation of the CC? Why would these people accept death over doctrine?

I believe just as it was in the fourth and fifth centuries, it is today. You have a remnant who refuse to corrupt the gospel of Christ. And just as it was then, it will be today when men will stand on the Word of God and be put to death for it.

There were indeed many who were killed for the Gospel of Christ - They are revered by the Church as martyrs.

As for your assertion about people being killed for not complying with Church Doctrine, I still prefer to not go down the road of who killed whom when and why. It is a slippery slope that leads invitably to bad feelings on both sides.

If you insist on persuing this I suggest starting a new thread and I supplying us with names and dates and the beliefs of the people in question held so that a reasonable discussion can be held.

Though I suspect, as you stated above, you won’t believe anything we tell you.
Too bad

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I love you James. As quickly as you saddened my heart, you made it happy.

James, I believe you sincerely believe in your religion and I respect that. I know what I offer goes against much of what your church offers. You have given me links on your churches stand and I appreciate that. Yet, when I go to these links, all I see are the words of men offering their interpretation.

And what are you offering me other than your interpetation of the same scripture. You wanted to send me a document. Was this document a compilation of Scripture? I suspect not. I suspect it was something that you felt you needed to write, and so is nothing more than your niterpretation of scripture. I recognize that you believe you were given it by the Holy Soirit but the fact remains that they are your words and not scripture.
This is no different than what you are accusing my links being. The Church also accepts that their words are recieved as an unction of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t require anything other then the Word of God. I establish all answers through the unction of the Holy Spirit and God’s Word.

As always this brings us back to the question of Authority. Why should I accept your “unction” over the Church’s “unction”? Especially when I can see that you have not gotten many of your mistaken ideas soley from scripture. Little of what you have said is new but are just rehashed protestatn errors from the past. So it is obvious that you have been in conversations with other Sola Scriptura protestants and have bought into many of their beliefs.
You may have distilled them into your own document, but they remain anything but new. From the “Trail of Blood” to “Jesus was a man who became God”, to the “Catholics don’t Follow the Bible”, to Catholics con’t Baptize right to…on and on.

I am no better then you James. If I am the least to enter the kingdom of God I will be elated.

I too will be elated.

It is written that a little leaven leaveneth the entire lump.

I believe if a little becomes corrupt, if even one word is changed, it can corrupt all.

Jesus is The Word - Nothing has changed

So two of the things I have a problem with in the CC is baptism and the trinity doctrine. I believe both have affected the church in such a way it brought about the many, many splinter groups or religions we have today.

Baptism and Trinity have little or nothing to do with the proliferation of churches. The reformers who started the Protestant Revolution had no problem with either baptism OR the Trinity. These were accepted Truths for 1000 years before the Reformation. So your argument falls on the first point.
Have you read the catholic Church documents to understand why She teaches as she does?

Just know James I love you and it is not my desire to offend you, but the Word of God does offend. If a man is not made known he is a sinner, how can he turn from sin? I am just using that as an example. It is not directed at you James.

And when I see my Brother embracing and teaching error I must follow the Command of **The Word **and make him aware of his error. See Matthew 18:15 (Teaching error is definately a sin don’t you agree?)

The Problem that you and I have is simply one of recognition. I have shown you repeatedly how the EARLIEST CHURCH of the Apostles recognized Authority and dealt with doctrinal issues. You have Chosen to ignore this. By doing so, you have chosen to ignore the very Command of Jesus Himself.
This is not a question of whether you accept the Catachism of the Church, but rather do you accept Gods own Word as Recorded in the Bible!!

So, I would respectfully ask that you quit dancing around with baptism and Trinity Doctrines and other issues until you are able to discern whether you are truly willing to Obey Jesus Himself and submit yourself to the rightful authority of His Church.

As an excersize, I ask you to do this. You claim that “church” is not an institution but rather is the “Body of Believers” Now read Matthew 18:15-18 and sbstitute “Body of believers” for church. See if it makes snese.
Secondly I ask you to consider Acts 15:1-29. When the Apostles rendered the decision about mosaic Law and Gentile Christians, was this a suggestion? Would it have been acceptable for the Jewish members of the Church in Antioch to seperate from the Gentile Church and have differing doctrines?
How about the Church in Corinth. Would it have been acceptable for the Church in Corinth to say, well that decision only applies to Antioch - we understand the scriptures differently?

Look at these things prayerfully and carefully.
Then - - -
Please Try to answer these questions directly and not with some post meant to turn the conversation in another direction.
Because - - -
I can keep showing you Authority for as lon as you can keep ignoring it.
It is IN the Bible - - It IS God’s Word.

How can you constantly stand on the Bible and then ignore whole chunks of it???

Peace
James

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Regardless of what I write, you won’t believe.

Yet, let us suppose we have a truth. Now over the years, this truth is being tagged with stipulations. How long before this truth is no longer true? With enough stipulations, a truth can be turned into a lie.

Now back to your question. How many people were put to death for not complying to the doctrine, the interpretation of the CC? Why would these people accept death over doctrine?

I believe just as it was in the fourth and fifth centuries, it is today. You have a remnant who refuse to corrupt the gospel of Christ. And just as it was then, it will be today when men will stand on the Word of God and be put to death for it.

Is there no Protestant who will reply to my question? I want to know what Protestants believe in this regard, and all I get is: “Look for yourself”; “You won’t believe”. I guess that this just goes to show that there wasn’t any such remnant. If it were anything other than fiction, there would be some list or article on the subject. The fact of the matter is that there simply were no “Bible-believing Christians” until the fifteenth century.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Thanks for the dialogue, it is so good to see us attempting to share when some views are so different. Again I think it interesting that the DC’ would be described as “fairytale” when they were included in the first edition of the KJV of the bible. So odd to me that they go from actually being in a Popular Protestant Bible and then not even on the same par as good Christian literature, as you have indicated.
Many Blessings,
Doolin

The love in my heart is to share the Word of God. There is nothing in this world that gives me greater pleasure.

I appreciate your kindness, for I know at times my posts are viewed as self righteous or arrogant which is furthest from the truth. It is not my intention to move any away from God, but to God.

Yes, the KJ did include canons that are not in it today. You must understand, even if one word, one verse, one chapter has err, the validity of the entire canon is compromised. Don’t you agree?

I probably should not have used the word fairytale. Now, suppose the canons are indeed not of God and a man reads them. Suppose by reading them it causes the man to adopt or create or promote a different doctrrine, contrary to the KJ without the DC.

Wescott and Hort, men who believed in evolution and were spiritualist created their own bible translation using a greek dialect that they claimed was older then that of the greek used in the KJ, but later was proven to be false.

Today, we live in a world where most have adopted the beleif of evolution and look at the many who are caught up in spiritualism.

Could their bible translation be the cause of it? Certainly.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Is there no Protestant who will reply to my question? I want to know what Protestants believe in this regard, and all I get is: “Look for yourself”; “You won’t believe”. I guess that this just goes to show that there wasn’t any such remnant. If it were anything other than fiction, there would be some list or article on the subject. The fact of the matter is that there simply were no “Bible-believing Christians” until the fifteenth century.

I would like to know when the Word of God was removed from the hands of believers and brought under the control of those in church office, thus forcing their interpretation on the congregation?

I would also like to know what happened to those who were uncovered believing different doctrine then that of the CC? Would this be reason to go in hiding?

 

[guanophore]

See, the problem I see with you is that you are totally unwilling to accept anything other then what is fed you of the catholic church.

this is absolutely not true, Randy. I happen to know for a fact that James gets fodder on here daily that is contraryto the Catholic Church. He graciously accepts these anti-Catholic postings and tries to deal with them charitably. I think he is very accepting!

He will not accept “a different gospel”, and cannot, as it is against the commands we have received from the Apostles. What you have brought here is a significant departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught.

  You have your own mind, heart, soul. The catholic church is not what will save your soul. It is only by being born again in your spirit. This is a decision that is between you and God, not the catholic church.

You are creating a false dichotomy, Randy. All who are born from above by water and Spirit become members of His One Body,the Church.

Only when a man is born again is he saved from the fires of hell. Then does a man become part of Christ's Church.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches, but what does it have to do with the Church?

 As for truth, the catholic church does not monopolize truth.

This is true, but then, Catholics never claimed that this was the case. this is a common calumny against Catholicism, usually offered by the rebellious and ignorant.

The spirit of truth known as the Holy Spirit is liken a river where all saints can drink from. It is not the soul posession of the catholic church James.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

 We as saints are to walk in the spirit, not the world. In this way we can discern things of the spirit. I know I am not telling you things you all ready know.

So what is your point? Are you trying to derail the thread, or is that just a side effect of trying to save James’ soul?

 What I am telling you is the catholic church is not infallible.

Seems like you are calling Jesus a liar. What do you think He meant when He said the gates of hell would not previal? Do you think that people can avoid hell when they espouse error?

 Baptism, it is not complicated at all and the Lord gave me directions on how it is to be done. And the thing that blessed me most is how different I see the bible after doing this study. Many things I did not understand before became known to me.

Wow! They joys of private revelation. Why should what was revealed to you be of more value to us than what was revealed to the Apostles?

Yet, here we again come to the problem of the Church.

It really does not have to be a problem, Randy. This is how Jesus set things up. He founded ONe Church, and it is His Body. All who are members of Him (the head) are members of His One Body,the Church.

How would we resolve on what the church truly is? We both agree that the church is the body of believers with Christ as the head.

This is an excellent question. What does scripture direct us to do when there is a disagreement among brethren?

YetYet, our definition of what must occur for a man to be part of the church are completely different.

Not completely. But we do have some differences in perception. Catholics look at this from the point of view of what the Apostles believed and taught. Persons such as yourself, who are separated from the Apostolic succession, try to figure it out by reading the Scriptures.

I believe that a man must be born again, to enter the kingdom of God, to be part of his Church. What exactly is your doctrinal definition of the church?

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Have you ever read the Catholic Catechism? If you wish to be successful trying to convert persons such as James, this will help you out.

Jesus most certainly wanted the church to be unified. It is the corruption of men with the help of the devil that has brought corruption unto the faith.

This is most certainly true.

Yet, you see nothing but the catholic church. I see in heaven just as it should be on earth that there is no denomination.

In heaven there will be no demoninations. Everyone there will be Catholic.

Catholicism is not a “denomination”. It is the foundation from which all the denominations spring.

There is many a denomination that will remain on the day of resurrection.

No. The souls who are part of them, yes, but all the disunity will vanish. There will be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

you believe the catholic church in the one true church. I believe that all those who stand on the gospel of Jesus Christ is the true church.

There is no difference between the two. Although the persons that have departed from the Apostolic Teaching are imperfectly joined, Jesus only has One Body.

Revelations 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Did you know this was written by a Catholic, for Catholics?

 

[guanophore]

Explain to me then why the catholic version of baptism is inconsistant with scripture?

This would be impossible, since it is not. However, what does the question have to do with the topic of the thread?

I believe you sincerely believe in your religion and I respect that. I know what I offer goes against much of what your church offers.

Is that why you are here, Randy? Is it your purpose to “offer” that which “goes against much of what your church offers”?

I will encourage you again to read the forum rules. CAF is not a venue for you to evangelize.

Acutually, what you have to offer is not really much against what The Apostles taught and believed. It is your misunderstanding of Catholicism that is “much” off.

You have given me links on your churches stand and I appreciate that. Yet, when I go to these links, all I see are the words of men offering their interpretation.

Do you somehow imagine that what you have been taught is not the “words of men offering their interpretation”?

I don’t require anything other then the Word of God. I establish all answers through the unction of the Holy Spirit and God’s Word.

You have become your own Pope! Congratulations, your holiness.:bowdown: Who needs a shepherd appointed by Christ when you can be your own!

I am no better than you.

Oh, but you are! No Catholhic would presume to establish all their own answers. Catholics submit to the teaching of the authority appointed by Christ. You are also better because you don’t “require” other things that God established for us that we do need, like the Church.

It is written that a little leaven leaveneth the entire lump.

Verily.

I believe if a little becomes corrupt, if even one word is changed, it can corrupt all.

That is ok, though, because your unction will reveal that to you, right?

So two of the things I have a problem with in the CC is baptism and the trinity doctrine. I believe both have affected the church in such a way it brought about the many, many splinter groups or religions we have today.

I do agree that the doctrines of trinity and baptism have resulted in a lot of splinters.

I would like to know when the Word of God was removed from the hands of believers and brought under the control of those in church office, thus forcing their interpretation on the congregation?

There are a couple of erroneous assumptions in this question. One would be that the Word of God was in the hands of everyone. Another would be that those in "church office’ were not “believers” or were not appropriate custodians of the Scriptures. Another is that one can “force” faith on anyone. The Catholic Church is responsible to preserve the interpretation that was handed down from the Apostles. This is the interpretation they are to give to the congregation. Had this been done with purity, it is likely the Reformation would never have happened!

I would also like to know what happened to those who were uncovered believing different doctrine then that of the CC? Would this be reason to go in hiding?

Those who believed a different doctrine were first considered to be poorly catechized, and an effort was made to correct this. If they were unwilling to accept correction, they were excommunicated.

As to hiding, that would depend upon what period of history you are referencing. In the first three centuries, both the heretics and the Catholics were in hiding, since they were all considered illegal.

 

[heiscominginthe]

this is absolutely not true, Randy. I happen to know for a fact that James gets fodder on here daily that is contraryto the Catholic Church. He graciously accepts these anti-Catholic postings and tries to deal with them charitably. I think he is very accepting!

He will not accept “a different gospel”, and cannot, as it is against the commands we have received from the Apostles. What you have brought here is a significant departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught.

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.

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.

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.

What you have brought here is a significant departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught

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.

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?

 

[heiscominginthe]

You are creating a false dichotomy, Randy. All who are born from above by water and Spirit become members of His One Body,the Church.

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.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Look at these things prayerfully and carefully.
Then - - -
Please Try to answer these questions directly and not with some post meant to turn the conversation in another direction.
Because - - -
I can keep showing you Authority for as lon as you can keep ignoring it.
It is IN the Bible - - It IS God’s Word.

James, I understand what you are saying, but your authority and mine are not the same.

The preacher of my church and your pope will never sit and debate scripture. You see my stand as another gospel as I see yours as another gospel.

Even our stand on salvation is not the same. I believe a man must be born again to enter the kindgom of God. Do you?

 

[heiscominginthe]

Seems like you are calling Jesus a liar. What do you think He meant when He said the gates of hell would not previal? Do you think that people can avoid hell when they espouse error?

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.

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.

Do you think that people can avoid hell when they espouse error?

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?

 

[Doolin]

Hey no disrespect here, but Heiscominginthe, you are not making a biblical case for any of what you are saying. You sound like you do not even begin to understand the Catholic Faith.
I would encourage you to understand before you condemn. While we are all fools for Christ.
You cannot make any headway here asking questions that have already been answered on this site in great detail.

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

 

[guanophore]

Yet, what is a different gospel?

That which departs from the Apostolic Faith left in custody of the Church. All Protestant theology falls under this description.

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?

I am sure that some truth can be found in it. To the extent that what has been revealed to you is consistent with the Apostolic Teaching it the Catholic Church, it is of God.

I believe that even before he would have read it, he would have his mind made up.

Yes. Catholics, by virtue of the promises we make to God during our confirmation, are bound to cleave to the Apostolic faith, and forsake it for no other “new” doctrine. If he were to find any of this material, created largely during the Reformation, it would have to be rejected.

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.

God gave authority to the Church to bind and to loose, which was to create and enforce legislation. Certainly, the preferred method is immersion. But, since the Church was born in a desert region, this type of water was not always avaialable. the church was on the run,a nd in hiding for centuries, since the faith was illegal. They had to do baptisms int he tombs and other places where water was not prevalent. read the Didache, and you can see this clearly.

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.

Yes, of course. The difference is that Catholics receive the Teachings of the Apostles to the successors that were appointed to teach them. Protestants try to discern what is right when they are separated from the Apostolic succession by reading the scriptures.

Are there to be boundries erected that promote splintering of the church?

As I recall, when the Roman Church attempted this in Europe, the Reformation resulted.

Yes, I think there are boundaries. It falls to the Church to define and adhere to the Teachings of Christ. Those who refuse to espouse these will separate themselves from the One Body.

Are we to accept every word from those in office in the church as the sole interpretors of the Word of God?

Do you imagine that this is what the Catholic Church teaches?

Or is it our duty as the body of Christ to govern those who shepard us?

No, it is the duty of God to govern the shepherds. IT is the duty of the sheep to pray for them, and love them.

Or are we to be led as sheep to the slaughter as those led by the Jones or Koresh of the world?

I think you have not been able to separate the faithless followers who sometimes end up in a position of authority from the Teaching of the Church, which is above all of us.

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, Randy. this is what you have been taught so that people could justify departing from the Apostolic Teaching that “water and Spirit” is a reference to water bapitsm. However, in biblical times, physical birth was never referred to as “of water”. This should probably be covered on another thread.

When we are born into this world, we are born in a sack of water or physical birth.

Modern science has demonstrated this, but in Biblical language, physical birth is not equated with water, but blood.

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.

I understand waht yuo are saying, but it is a departure from the Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles taught that there was One Baptism, and that it occurred in water, and when it did, the HS was infused into the person.

What does this have to do with the topic? Maybe it would be better to start a new thread.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This statement reflects your lack of understanding with what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. However, agree, if the Catholic Church really was what you percieve it to be, then it would not be the Church Christ founded. Unfortunately, you have not been properly acquainted.

And when Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail, I don’t think he meant the CC would prevent it from happening.

Well, of course not! Humans are not capable of preventing themselves from falling into error. Only God can prevent that! that is why infallibility is called a “negative” gift. It means that the Church is restrained, by the HS from entering error. Once error is taught, one passes through the gates of hell.

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.

indeed, this is what Catholics have done, and continue to do. If our current president removes the right of conscience, I don’t doubt that there will be dire consequences for Catholics.

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?

This statement makes no sense at all. Jesus did not have to “earn” his way to heaven, since heaven is His. Men merit heaven by being free from sin by grace, through faith.
He cleanses us from all sin.

 

[JRKH]

Finally - A direct answer to a direct question! Thank you!

Now let address the points in your post. And, in advance, let me apologize if I sound snide.

Look at these things prayerfully and carefully.
Then - - -
Please Try to answer these questions directly and not with some post meant to turn the conversation in another direction.
Because - - -
I can keep showing you Authority for as lon as you can keep ignoring it.
It is IN the Bible - - It IS God’s Word.

This is where you are wrong.
Both of our authorities are Jesus Christ. He is The King and The Judge. The difference is not in the Authority but in our willingness to submit to His Authority.
This is where we differ.
Jesus came to redeem us from our sins.
He also set up a Body of Believers called His Church to which He gave Authority.
To Spread, Grow and Teach this Church Jesus wrote not one word. Instead He spent three years training 12 men plus many others.
After Jesus Ascention into heaven, He did not pour out books upon the Apostles but God’s Holy Spirit. The Apostles immediately began to go about fearlessly teaching the Good News.
Again you will note that not one word of NT has yet been written.
So we have a clear indication of which came first, the Church or the Bible.
The Earliest NT writing that is dated to about 20 years AFTER the ascention.
And The Church existed and taught long before the NT books were written down.
Now, of course, as the Apostles went about teaching and establishing Communities of Believers, there came need for additional teachers - priests and bishops. These were selected from among those who were “personally trained by the Apostles”. These then personally trained their successors - and so on. This personal training and passing on of the faith continued for nearly 400 years before the canon of The Bible was discerned and canonized “By Successors of Jesus’ Apostles”
So - It should be easy to see that the flow goes thus:
Jesus came first and established -
His Church which spread the Gospel and later assembled -
The Bible

So - Authority for the Bible comes From Christ Through The Church and not seperate from it.

The preacher of my church and your pope will never sit and debate scripture. You see my stand as another gospel as I see yours as another gospel.

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?

I find it interesting that you wrote earlier that All you needed was the Bible and now you are admitting that you have a “preacher”. So — What is he preaching if it is not “his interpretation” of the Bible. You accuse me of being locked into the interpretations of the Catholic Church, and talk of the 'unction" of the Holy Spirit, and yet you yourself submit yourself to the preachings of a mere man. A man you evidently respect and I am sure who has profound influence on how you view scripture and history.

In Short, while you claim your beliefs to come strictly from the Bible and put forth the “Holy Spirit” as your inspiration, in Truth you are part of a “Faith Tradition” headed by a “Preacher” who teaches his interpretation of scripture and you buy into it. Of course in your case, if the Preacher started saying things that you didn’t agree with you could simply leave his church and go to another where they did agree with you.

Even our stand on salvation is not the same. I believe a man must be born again to enter the kindgom of God. Do you?

Why would you think that we are different?
The Church teaches that we must be born again in the Spirit.
YOu see - Once again you demonstrate that the only thing you know about the Catholic Church are the errors you have been spoon fed by anti-catholics.

If you are seeking Truth, then Seek it.
You once mentioned to me that I “have my own mind and soul”, well so do you.
Are you afraid to Listen to and read the actual Church histories, teaching and documents with an open mind?
I left the Church years ago and went looking - my searching led me back home to the Catholic Church. If you are searching for the FULL TRUTH, then get out there and make sound and critical studies of the Bible, and where it came from - various denominations and where they came from.

Peace
James