What is the true church?

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Yes just as it was with the apostles when Jesus was there. Are you saying that the apostles disagred on matter of faith and morals?

No, I wasn’t, but since you brought it up… yes they did. Paul rebuked Peter in Antioch… There was contention beween Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39) this was a moral dispute that John Mark wasn’t worthy to go with them.

Although only one example was necessary to prove your idea wrong of perfect harmony of truth in the Catholic Church.

No where in that verse does he say it is acceptiable to have contentions does he?

Of course not… but he also said “sin not” (1 Cor. 15:34). If you compare that verse with Paul’s own writings in Romans 7:20 we can see that it is impossible to completely abstain from all manner of sin, but we are to “war against it”. Paul was telling the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 1:10 to be “perfectly joined together in one mind”, not that those Corinthians could have possibly been perfectly of one mind, but they were supposed to strive for that.

If the Holy Spirit lead you all as you claim that you do. Then you wouldnt have contentions when it comes to faith and morals. Would you? Do you claim that the Holy Spirit leads you both into disagreement?

Of course not, but it is our imperfection that prohibits us as individuals from perfectly knowing truth… and it is necessary to perfectly know all truth in order to be of “one mind” in Christ.

I never said that there would not be people in the Church who diasagree with the Church. But the Church is clear on what it teaches. If everyone belived what the Chruch teaches then ther would not be any contentions now would it?

Well, you are claiming that the Catholic Church is the origin of truth. And the Catholic Church is fallible… how do I know this? Because even the Apostles were fallible (which is who the Catholic Church claims to be based on). Peter made a terrible mistake (Gal. 2:11), Thomas wouldn’t believe, Judas betrayed Jesus, and Paul himself admits he doesn’t know the truth completely…

1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If you do not have the purity of complete truth, you cannot possibly attain perfect unity in truth. And we will not have perfect unity until we are in heaven with Christ. Only when we have been changed from corruptible to incorruptible will we be free to attain perfect unity. Paul also said…

1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

This statement by Paul was made during the time which you (and others) claim the Catholic Church was set up and active. Paul though, says that the perfection has not come yet.

I dont get this are you saying that it is Gods willl that will that we dont all agree? Sorry im lost here please clarify

No, I was showing you the illogical conclusion of your argument… the only way you could possibly claim perfection in the Catholic Church is to claim that the dissimulation was God’s will.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

The old wine and new wine distinction was another poorly articulated, intellectually challenged justification for your personal traditions - the horse is alive and kicking.

An argument like the one quoted above is defeated without any response from me. I have given my position regarding “new wine” and “old wine”.

Why don’t you enlighten us as to why the verses previously quoted where Jesus drank wine, and turned water into wine… can be proven to be “old wine” (of the alcoholic type), and not “new wine” (of the pure blood of the grape type).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philty,

Oh we read it alright - it just makes no sense. I responded to your rebuttal and now you simply dodge. It is an undeniable fact that John 16 occurred at the last supper when only the Apostles and Christ were present. There is no further discussion regarding that verse. You simply cant admit when your wrong…

I was a little confused about the “dodging” statement, as I have also been confused when you asked me to rebut your statements about John 16. I figured out where the confusion came in… you posted in post # 163…

The fact of the matter is that Chapter 16 of John’s Gospel - as well as several other Chapters- is written during the Last Supper when only the Apostles were present - the first 12 Apostles, that is When Jesus said the “Spirit of Truth will guide YOU into all truth” He was speaking exclusively to the Apostles, and meant that the Spirit of Truth will guide the Apostles into all truth. This does not mean that you and I wont also have all truth revealed to us

And I gave a “rebuttal” to that statement in post #170…

In response to MrS… but as blanket answer to all those who have alluded to revelation being exclusive to the Apostles…

MrS said…

Promise that the Holy Spirit would lead into all Truth was made to the Apostles and hence their successors.

Jesus said in John 16…

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

The Apostle Paul, who had that truth said this of God who would have all people come to the knowledge of truth…

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

And this knowledge of truth is revealed to common men “who love Christ” by the Holy Spirit…

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things

Paul did not isolate himself or the other Apostles in that statement, but he included himself as one of those who “love him”.

On post #183 I quoted you as saying “Please dont forget to rebut my analysis of the meaning of “you” in John 16:13 here on this thread”… and I said…

I already did that in post #170… I don’t think some people are really reading my posts…

You responded that you read it already… but it didn’t make any sense. Would you care to clarify?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Can someone direct me to the post # in which bibleapologist discusses “old wine” and “new wine” or give me a synopsis of this “distinction the Catholic Church is missing”? I’ve tried weeding through this thread but am not finding that particular topic in-depth. Thanks.

Post #140 and #152.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

Odell,
No, I wasn’t, but since you brought it up… yes they did. Paul rebuked Peter in Antioch… There was contention beween Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39) this was a moral dispute that John Mark wasn’t worthy to go with them.

If you read the verse before that you will see that Paul insisted that they should not take someone who had diserted them at Pamphylia. Guess what we didnt take Martin Luther with us either. Why? Because he diserted us.

againn never said there want be contention but we know where to turn too if you wanted to be one in mind. Martin Luther could have staid with the Church to stay one with mind but he didnt.

Of course not… but he also said “sin not” (1 Cor. 15:34). If you compare that verse with Paul’s own writings in Romans 7:20 we can see that it is impossible to completely abstain from all manner of sin, but we are to “war against it”. Paul was telling the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 1:10 to be “perfectly joined together in one mind”, not that those Corinthians could have possibly been perfectly of one mind, but they were supposed to strive for that.

Is this your excuse for not striving for perfict unity?

Jesus himself prays that we be one as he and his father are one(Jn17:17-23)
I think the Catholic Chruch has done our best to do what Jesus prayed for. You cant say we dont do a good job there. Much better than you who on the other hand dont try you just make excuses to why it permisible to have devisons.

Well, you are claiming that the Catholic Church is the origin of truth. And the Catholic Church is fallible… how do I know this? Because even the Apostles were fallible (which is who the Catholic Church claims to be based on). Peter made a terrible mistake (Gal. 2:11), Thomas wouldn’t believe, Judas betrayed Jesus, and Paul himself admits he doesn’t know the truth completely…

The Chruch is not fallible it is the body of Christ John. In whitch he only has one body not 33,000. now I told you before infallibility is not the same thing as not being able to sin. We are all sinners. But when the Chruch speacks on faith and morals it is infallible.

ex some one comits suicide. Some Churches believe he is going to hell some dont. Who is right who can we turn too. You can go to the infallible sorce the Chruch. But your true Chruch and the True Chruch down the street. One of those true Churches got it wrong. You cant have truth and at the same time have false truths.

 

[Eden]

Philthy,

You are right… Jesus did drink wine, turned water into wine, and used the analogy of the vine and the vinyard, and at the last supper drank wine with the Apostles… But, can you prove that it was new wine, or old wine? Since Jesus was perfectly sinless, His actions would have never been immoral in any way.

If wine were a mocker, why would Jesus partake in that, and act in such a way to condone consuming it? The truth is, the type of wine that Jesus turned into wine was the “pure blood of the grape” (Duet. 32:14). Which was also called wine… as was “old wine” which was the fermented type.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Thanks for pointing me to the posts, bibleapologist.

There is a problem with your argument, though.

“Some anti-wine people say the kind of wine that was approved is the kind that doesn’t intoxicate. But the Greek word for wine, oinos, used in the “don’t get drunk on it” verses, is the same word used in the “it’s okay to drink it in moderation” verses. Besides, all true wine has alcohol and can intoxicate; “wine” without alcohol isn’t wine at all.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203chap.asp

 

[Odell]

Philty,
I was a little confused about the “dodging” statement, as I have also been confused when you asked me to rebut your statements about John 16. I figured out where the confusion came in… you posted in post # 163…

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that Chapter 16 of John’s Gospel - as well as several other Chapters- is written during the Last Supper when only the Apostles were present - the first 12 Apostles, that is When Jesus said the “Spirit of Truth will guide YOU into all truth” He was speaking exclusively to the Apostles, and meant that the Spirit of Truth will guide the Apostles into all truth. This does not mean that you and I wont also have all truth revealed to us

And I gave a “rebuttal” to that statement in post #170…
Jesus said in John 16…
Quote:
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

We dotnt deny this. You and all of us agree that the Spirit of truth will guide us. But how, is where we both believe differently.

You responded that you read it already… but it didn’t make any sense. Would you care to clarify?

It doesnt make any sense because we can use the same verses to suport our claim. Nowhere in those verses does it say exactly how the Holy spirit will reveal Himself to us

You say we are not reading your post. I underlined Philthys sentence from above that said: This does not mean that you and I wont also have all truth revealed to us. Perhaps it is you that is not reading our post. The problem is how is the truth revealed.

 

[Odell]

bibleapolagist

You used celibacy to show that the Catholic Chruch can not be the True Chruch because celebacy defiles marriage or something to the lines of that. We have shown you how that is not true. But you have claimed that contraception does the same. So a Church that defiles the sanctity of marriage cant be the True Church right? I dont know not one Baptist minister who teaches that cantraception is imoral. But acording to you the Baptist Chruch fits the True Chruch description. So most Baptist would not be the True Chruch acording to your own theology because they defile marriage.

I bet that falls under a non-essential to you. But it really shouldnt.
Not only that but it is Ok for The other Baptist Churchs to believe in it because acording to you there is going to be contentions in the True Chruch. There is nothing we can do about it.

If it is OK for the True Chruches to have content over non-esentials than why do you keep throwing the non-esentials at us The Catholic Chruch to prove us wrong? Or that we are not the True Chruch? (wine for example)

If the non-esential matter to us who are not part of the true Chruch than how much more do you think they would matter in the True Chruch? Im showing you that you have no logic behind what you believe.

You only throw these non-esential to prove us wrong. But it doesnt fly coming from someone who believs it is ok to have contention in the True Chruch.

The bottom line is The True Chruch should be able to claim at least to trace its leniage all the way back to Christ. The Cahtolic Chruch does and you do not. Im not going to waste my time with someone who cant trace his Chruch all the way back to Jesus. Because obviosly it cant be the True Church.

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

The Chruch is not fallible it is the body of Christ John… But when the Chruch speacks on faith and morals it is infallible.
… You cant have truth and at the same time have false truths

Again, you are claiming that the Catholic Church is the origin of truth (infallible on matters of faith and morals).

First, we agree that the origin of truth is not fallible… it must be completely holy and perfect.

Second, in order to be completely holy and perfect, and to be the origin of truth… the subject in question would have to be comparable to nothing… meaning, any truth emanating from that origin would have to be absolutely superior to any other claimant to truth in the universe. Therefore, any statement originating from that source couldn’t be received in any other way but as truth… that source would be the benchmark of truth.

Third, you and I both claim that God is the ultimate authority in the universe. And since God is the ultimate authority in the universe… He is the benchmark of truth. Anything God says is truth, because He is the ultimate authority… the creator. For any “creation” to proclaim “infallibility” would be a self defeating statement… because they are not the creator, they are the creature.

Fourth, the only position a “creature” (the created) can take is to ‘make a truthful statement’. That is the best any creation can do regarding truth.

The Catholic Church, or any other created being or entity cannot claim infallibility, because they are not the ultimate authority in the universe… they cannot be the benchmark because they do not possess omnipotent authority.

It is imperative that we all understand this. There is no truth besides God… Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life… this was a claim to deity… Jesus did not say, I am truthful because He wasn’t created… He IS the creator.

This is what I mean when I say that you need to lay aside your preconceived notions. You are trusting the Catholic Church to be infallible on matters of faith and morals… and there is no basis for their claim. To prove infallibility the Catholic Church would actually have to prove themselves to be the Omnipotent God… and if they can’t do that, their claim to infallibility defeats itself.

From this point we can begin to discuss whether the Catholic Church is “truthful” or not… Based on the fact that we are “created beings” the best we can hope to claim is “truthfullness”… which is nothing but a reiteration of a previously spoken truth by the ultimate authority… God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Besides, all true wine has alcohol and can intoxicate; “wine” without alcohol isn’t wine at all."

You’re right, but only concerning the definition of “wine” in our culture. You must take the cultural context in consideration. In those days they called grape juice “wine”… which is why I referenced Mark 2:22 where “new wine” is spoken of as a wine that breaks old bottles.

The only reason “new wine” would break old bottles, is because the process of fermentation would cause pressure to build up in the bottles… unless that wine is allowed to “gas off” the fermentation process would not be allowed to complete.

It stands to reason, that since “new wine” is placed in bottles in such a way that they would break if the bottles were weak, that particular wine was not intended to ferment to an alcoholic beverage.

Therefore, we can safely deduce that there did in fact exist a type of “wine” that was not alcoholic, and was not intended to be alcoholic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You’re right, but only concerning the definition of “wine” in our culture. You must take the cultural context in consideration. In those days they called grape juice “wine”… which is why I referenced Mark 2:22 where “new wine” is spoken of as a wine that breaks old bottles.

The only reason “new wine” would break old bottles, is because the process of fermentation would cause pressure to build up in the bottles… unless that wine is allowed to “gas off” the fermentation process would not be allowed to complete.

It stands to reason, that since “new wine” is placed in bottles in such a way that they would break if the bottles were weak, that particular wine was not intended to ferment to an alcoholic beverage.

Therefore, we can safely deduce that there did in fact exist a type of “wine” that was not alcoholic, and was not intended to be alcoholic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

There was only one word for “wine” in the Greek text, *oinos, *which was used in the “don’t get drunk on it” as well as in the “it’s okay to drink it in moderation” verses.

There is only one word to describe “wine” in the Greek text. Since the Greek does not make a distinction between “new wine”, i.e. “grape juice” (Welch’s) and “old wine” (or “wine wine”), I have to conclude that your distinctions are Protestant revisionism.

 

[Eden]

A response to the Baptist “new wine” theory in the Catholic Answers library:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005qq.asp

Q: A Baptist told me that Jesus never drank wine and neither should any Christian. He said that Jesus actually drank unfermented grape juice, or new wine. What does the Bible say?

A: Jesus had no qualms about drinking wine, and even miraculously produced 150 gallons of it at the wedding feast of Cana. This was clearly alcoholic wine, since it was described by the major domo of the event as the “best wine,” which he explained was normally brought out at the beginning of wedding feasts until the guests had lost their taste. Non-alcoholic wine does not cause one to lose one’s taste; thus the “best wine”—the kind that Jesus produced—was alcoholic (John 2:10).

The Greek word for wine is *oinos, *and this is the wine shared at the Last Supper. During the Passover meal, Jesus and his apostles would have consumed several cups of wine, and any Jew today can verify that it is not grape juice that one consumes during a Passover meal.

Though your Baptist friend may object that Jesus only drank new wine, Acts 2:13 indicates that new wine can cause drunkenness—whereas grape juice cannot.

Scripture never condemns the moderate use of alcohol, though drunkenness and addiction is forbidden (1 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:3). In fact, Scripture even recommends that alcohol be consumed on occasion: “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23). In an age in which modern water purification methods and food storage techniques were unknown, the antiseptic effect of alcoholic wine could play a significant role in preventing gastroenteritis (non-alcoholic wine would not have this effect). Paul thus counseled Timothy to take advantage of its medicinal benefits.

In the Old Testament, the evidence is even more explicit: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more” (Prov. 31:6).

In discussing the disposition of tithes, the book of Deuteronomy tells us that if one lives too far from Jerusalem then one should convert the tithe to money and then “go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice” (Deut. 14:25–26). Again, even if “wine” were somehow non-alcoholic, “strong drink” is unambiguously not.

 

[Odell]

Odell,

Again, you are claiming that the Catholic Church is the origin of truth (infallible on matters of faith and morals).

Never said we are the origin of Truth, God is. And he trust it to his church.

From this point we can begin to discuss whether the Catholic Church is “truthful” or not… Based on the fact that we are “created beings” the best we can hope to claim is “truthfullness”… which is nothing but a reiteration of a previously spoken truth by the ultimate authority… God.

I thought you said the Holy Spirit will lead us to ALL TRUTH.

If we believed this Truth and preached this Truth. Than the Truth that we would be preaching would be infallible because its the Truth and Truth is not fallible.

 

[Odell]

Eden,
You’re right, but only concerning the definition of “wine” in our culture. You must take the cultural context in consideration. In those days they called grape juice “wine”… which is why I referenced Mark 2:22 where “new wine” is spoken of as a wine that breaks old bottles.

Dosnt matter John. You are talking about a content that in no way proves we are not the true Church. Contents do not matter In the true Church remember. So it shouldnt keep showing up in a thread to prove we are not the True Church. If content dont matter in the Church it shoulnt outside the Church.

 

[Image_of_God]

Odell,

Again, you are claiming that the Catholic Church is the origin of truth (infallible on matters of faith and morals).

First, we agree that the origin of truth is not fallible… it must be completely holy and perfect.

Second, in order to be completely holy and perfect, and to be the origin of truth… the subject in question would have to be comparable to nothing… meaning, any truth emanating from that origin would have to be absolutely superior to any other claimant to truth in the universe. Therefore, any statement originating from that source couldn’t be received in any other way but as truth… that source would be the benchmark of truth.

Third, you and I both claim that God is the ultimate authority in the universe. And since God is the ultimate authority in the universe… He is the benchmark of truth. Anything God says is truth, because He is the ultimate authority… the creator. For any “creation” to proclaim “infallibility” would be a self defeating statement… because they are not the creator, they are the creature.

Fourth, the only position a “creature” (the created) can take is to ‘make a truthful statement’. That is the best any creation can do regarding truth.

The Catholic Church, or any other created being or entity cannot claim infallibility, because they are not the ultimate authority in the universe… they cannot be the benchmark because they do not possess omnipotent authority.

It is imperative that we all understand this. There is no truth besides God… Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life… this was a claim to deity… Jesus did not say, I am truthful because He wasn’t created… He IS the creator.

This is what I mean when I say that you need to lay aside your preconceived notions. You are trusting the Catholic Church to be infallible on matters of faith and morals… and there is no basis for their claim. To prove infallibility the Catholic Church would actually have to prove themselves to be the Omnipotent God… and if they can’t do that, their claim to infallibility defeats itself.

From this point we can begin to discuss whether the Catholic Church is “truthful” or not… Based on the fact that we are “created beings” the best we can hope to claim is “truthfullness”… which is nothing but a reiteration of a previously spoken truth by the ultimate authority… God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

The Catholic Church is the origin of truth, as I’ve shown on post #166.

You need to see the history of the Church, and what the Church actually looked like. You will surely know that the true Church is the Catholic Church.

If we cannot agree with Bible verses then I guess we will have to agree on the writings of the Fathers.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I have given my position regarding “new wine” and “old wine”.

Why don’t you enlighten us as to why the verses previously quoted where Jesus drank wine, and turned water into wine… can be proven to be “old wine” (of the alcoholic type), and not “new wine” (of the pure blood of the grape type).
John
www.gideonsword.net

For starters, there is no need to prove that Jesus drank wine - that is an illogical request on your part. If he did, that would certainly prove my point, but that he failed to do so does not prove your point at all. The fact that Jesus didnt drink wine doesnt prove that drinking wine is a sin any more than the fact that Jesus not getting married proves that marriage is a sin.
Second, I would not need to prove that Jesus condoned drinking wine - any of the apostles approving of it will do. Do you understand why John?
Lastly, I dont even need to prove either of the above. **The burden of proof is on you **to prove something not explicitly stated in scripture and not recorded in early Christianity: that is that drinking wine is sinful. Where is this clearly stated? Nowhere. You dragged 4 OT quotes out with vague references to wine - none of which specifically say that drinking wine is a sin. Is there a sect of Judaism which considers drinking wine a sin? Do Jews drink old wine or new wine at the passover? I honestly have no idea, but that might be a start towards a concrete argument of your point.
Your NT verses simply dont say what you want - Jesus not drinking wine mixed with myrrh while he was being crucified does not equal “drinking wine is a sin”. Perhaps the myrrh turned him off. He specifically said he wouldnt drink the fruit of the vine until he drinks it with them in the kingdom of the Father. That would clearly explain WHY he didnt drink it on the cross - He had already said that he wouldnt. This discredits your presentation of that incident as a demonstration it was sinful. But it does much more - it actually proves your point is wrong. We can only presume you brought that verse up because the wine offered to Jesus was “old wine” - that which you claim is sinful to drink. I have provided scripture which explains WHY Jesus didnt drink it - he said he wouldnt…until later. And the fact that he WILL drink it later seems to be pretty convincing proof that there is NOTHING wrong with drinking it. Unless you are prepared to argue that those are simply unrelated events, or that drinking wine is OK in heaven, but not on earth - it wouldnt surprise me.

Neither does the prophecy of John not drinking wine (doesnt say new or old, does it?) or strong drink imply that drinking wine is a sin.
In addition, we have the verse from Paul recommending wine for the stomach to Timothy and we have the verse I quoted which says that “everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected” because it is made holy by the invocation of his name.
You tried to compare drinking wine to other things to discredit this verse, but those other things are inherently destructive to the human body, unlike wine, and I dont find your argument convincing . Lastly, we have all the admonitions against “drunkenness” but never the admonition against simply drinking wine. It just isnt there. Are you certain there is no distinction between drunkeness and drinking wine? Remember what our Lord said, “Its not what enters you which defiles you, its what comes out from within you”

 

[Philthy]

Philty,

I was a little confused about the “dodging” statement, as I have also been confused when you asked me to rebut your statements about John 16. I figured out where the confusion came in… you posted in post # 163…And I gave a “rebuttal” to that statement in post #170…On post #183 I quoted you as saying “Please dont forget to rebut my analysis of the meaning of “you” in John 16:13 here on this thread”… and I said…

You responded that you read it already… but it didn’t make any sense. Would you care to clarify?

John
www.gideonsword.net

I dont see how you conclude that the promise given to the Apostles to be led into “all truth” is a promise that Paul is giving to each individual believer at Corinth. The whole discussion that Paul is having in 1 Corinthians 2 is about PAULS message TO them. It is not about each of them receiving their own message.
Christ said the apostles would be led into all truth, and Paul - one of the apostles - had that truth and PREACHED it TO the corinthinans. He recalls how he preached when he (alone) first saw them(1Cor 2:1-5) and differentiates how he and Sosthenes preach to the more spiritually mature (1Cor2:6-10) I just dont see him saying to anyone that the fullness of truth will be revealed to them individually apart from the truth revealed to and through the apostles. He even reemphasizes the degree of spiritual immaturity of the Corinthians in Chapter 3 “I could not talk to you as spiritual people…because you were unable to take it…Indeed, you are STILL NOT ABLE, EVEN NOW.”
So the short end of my confusion is how you conclude that the promise to the Apostles becomes the same promise to each individual believer in Corinth.

 

[Philthy]

Eden,
You’re right, but only concerning the definition of “wine” in our culture. You must take the cultural context in consideration. In those days they called grape juice “wine”… which is why I referenced Mark 2:22 where “new wine” is spoken of as a wine that breaks old bottles.

The only reason “new wine” would break old bottles, is because the process of fermentation would cause pressure to build up in the bottles… unless that wine is allowed to “gas off” the fermentation process would not be allowed to complete.

It stands to reason, that since “new wine” is placed in bottles in such a way that they would break if the bottles were weak, that particular wine was not intended to ferment to an alcoholic beverage.

Therefore, we can safely deduce that there did in fact exist a type of “wine” that was not alcoholic, and was not intended to be alcoholic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

One little problem though - you haven’t presented any proof that people actually drank “new wine”. If they did drink it, it wouldn’t be around long enough to burst a wineskin, would it?

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

If we believed this Truth and preached this Truth. Than the Truth that we would be preaching would be infallible because its the Truth and Truth is not fallible.

No, the truth we would be preaching would be truthful… but not infallible… to be infallible means that something is not able to be corrupted, God is infallible and He alone is the originator of truth… since we speak what we learn from Him… we speak truthfulness.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

image of god,

The Catholic Church is the origin of truth, as I’ve shown on post #166.

You need to see the history of the Church, and what the Church actually looked like. You will surely know that the true Church is the Catholic Church.

If we cannot agree with Bible verses then I guess we will have to agree on the writings of the Fathers.

I know you believe the Catholic Church is the origin of truth, that is why I have proven logically that to claim to be the origin of truth is the same as claiming to be God. Do you also claim to be God?

If you answer that question in alignment with the rest of the posters on this thread, you will say that God has granted the Church authority to speak and teach the truth through apostolic succession according to 1 Timothy. You will also say that God has built His church such that the Church cannot teach anything false.

Your quote from post #166 from the 2nd council of Nicea verifies what I suspect your answer will be…

the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth.

You can’t claim the Catholic Church is the origin of truth, if God is the one who gives truth. If that power was given by God, how can you claim that the origin of that power is anything other than the origin of truth? Actually what you are claiming is that the Catholic Church is “speaking truthfully” according to what they have been given by God.

John
www.gideonsword.net