Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me, since we believe the same thing. I disagree with your interpretation. Jesus IS the narrow gate by which we enter heaven.
Peace...
See how dangerous Sola Scriptura can be. Misinterpretation of those verses may leave you in hell. Maybe you should seek the Authority that gave you the Bible in the first place, the Catholic Church.
The Catholic belief goes back to the beginning of Christianity. Just read John 6 and the writings of the early church fathers. Your belief is a consequence of Sola Scriptura which has caused nothing but the division of His Church.
I am not sure what exactly you think my belief is. And what part of John 6 are you pointing to? The bread? Well if that is it, of coarse the bread represents Christ but is not Christ. Christ is the true Bread of Life.
JN 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Sola Scripture? No! Jesus has much to say apart from Scripture. Look at creation, who's lines of Truth go through out the whole earth in every language but nothing contradicts what is already written or that would make Him out be a liar. Many wise men of God even today have lots of things to say that are true but not written in Scripture. It is written, " MT 13:52, "Then He said to them, Therefore every Scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a home owner, who brings forth out of his treasure things new and old."
The real rub for you is that I do not believe all Catholic doctrine because you think I adhere to Sola Scripture [I do not] in the way most Protestant Churches hold to. Well, you can be sure when Scripture does contradict some Catholic doctrine or other denominational teachings then I go with Scripture. Makes no difference to me because Scripture trumps man made doctrine.
I have lots of new things to share and have already on this forum but do not contradict what is already written unless of coarse I misunderstood what I thought the Spirit was teaching and we have all done that for sure. It behooves one to hear what Jesus said about that, "Be careful what you hear." Scripture also does not show a man/women their personal pathway in life because all are unique and it is written, "As many as are born of Spirit are led by the Spirit."
My belief goes back to the beginning of Christianity and Christ had the Truth recorded so that I might know and not depend on those who add to or take from foundational Truth. There is nothing wrong with good traditions/customs so long as they do not make the Word of God void. Having a symbolic Tabernacle is fine. I was only pointing out that the true Tabernacle is Christ Himself just as anointing oil is mere symbolic for the Holy Spirit. If you can't see that then it is useless to dialog anymore so as to avoid needless strife. You have your salvation and I have mine, No need to proselytize one another. This is just an exchange of what we think of doctrine. Jesus is the true teacher when all is said and done. It is written, "Call no man Teacher." If you do you will be following man not Christ.
See how dangerous Sola Scriptura can be. Misinterpretation of those verses may leave you in hell. Maybe you should seek the Authority that gave you the Bible in the first place, the Catholic Church.
No, what's dangerous is following man-made doctrine or placing that above the Word of God.
I admit my interpretation of that Scripture may be wrong and if so, the Holy Spirit will correct me. Why do I need the Catholic Church if I have the Holy Spirit residing within me, leading and guiding me? that's a rhetorical question, no need to respond.
See how dangerous Sola Scriptura can be. Misinterpretation of those verses may leave you in hell. Maybe you should seek the Authority that gave you the Bible in the first place, the Catholic Church.
Oh just wait a moment right there. Catholics did not give ANYONE the bible. The catholic church has added several things to the gospel that are not there. How can you call the catholic church the authority that gave us the bible? God is the authority that gave us the bible. If you knew less than half of the heresies that exist in the catholic church you would flee from that corrupt religion.
Oh just wait a moment right there. Catholics did not give ANYONE the bible. The catholic church has added several things to the gospel that are not there. How can you call the catholic church the authority that gave us the bible? God is the authority that gave us the bible. If you knew less than half of the heresies that exist in the catholic church you would flee from that corrupt religion.
The RCC existed before the bible was put together. The traditions of the church were passed by word of mouth.
Quote:
The Church and the Faith existed before the Bible; that seems an elementary and simple fact which no one can deny or ever has denied. Thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and missionaries of Christ in various lands, and believed the whole truth of God as we believe it now, and became saints, before ever they saw or read, or could possibly see or read, a single sentence of inspired Scripture of the New Testament, for the simple reason that such Scripture did not then exist.
Quote:
The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon.
The Catholics gave the Protestants their Bible in 393. However, they would not use it for another millenium because they did not exist.
Catholics are traditional and some genuflect and even do the sign of the cross when they find themselves in a Protestant church. The anti-Catholic Protestant folks don't like any tradition.
But, in the end: Who cares! Let them genuflect, no one gets hurt.
Oh just wait a moment right there. Catholics did not give ANYONE the bible. The catholic church has added several things to the gospel that are not there. How can you call the catholic church the authority that gave us the bible? God is the authority that gave us the bible. If you knew less than half of the heresies that exist in the catholic church you would flee from that corrupt religion.
The Bishops of the Church in a Council in North Africa decided what texts would go into making up the canon of the bible. Many of those texts not allowed in are regarded as Gnostic texts.
And the Protestant Churches eventually deducted texts from the bible. Some Protestant Churches--from what I have been told at least--use a bible that has the same number of books or texts in it as the ones Catholics use.
But a lot of Protestant Churches use a bible with fewer books in it than the ones Catholics used, and the bible (in number of texts/books) used for what... something like the first 1,300 years of so of Christianity?
The bible as a canonized whole did not exist for the first 300 years of the Christian Church. This should be somewhat evident from the New Testament's letters of Paul to the Church of Corinth. I didn't get that idea about Paul's letters to the Corinthians from Catholic apologetics. So far as I know I'm the first and only one to point it out (I said so far as I know--meaning one or more people may have pointed out before me). How can Paul's letters be in the bible if the bible predated Paul's letters to the Church of Corinth that followed sola scriptura? If in fact the Church of Corinth followed sola scriptura.
I know you'll dismiss that. Putting religion aside... I think the observation is a valid one in terms of the logic of chronological time.
11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
In Catholic Mass the 4 gospels have place of honor in the bible. Paul says here he preached the good news or the gospel. But in terms of chronological time he could not have meant in the passage above that he came with the bible in hand already containing this letter to the Church of Corinth.
So, who added this letter of Paul's into the canon of Christian scripture?
Also, something I also notice, and again I'm not getting this from Catholic apologetics websites, books, essays, lectures, or videos. But Paul's letter to the Corinthians, addressing their problems, and orthodox doctrine, seems in substance a tradition of writing the Popes took on with encyclicals.
Consider:
Quote:
The First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians follows his Letter to the Romans in the New Testament of the Bible.
St. Paul visited Athens and then established a Christian community in Corinth, a seaport in Greece, about the year 51 AD, on his second missionary journey from Antioch, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (15:36-18:22). While Paul was on his third journey (Acts 19:1-20), he learned that the community had become divided, as members began identifying themselves with different religious leaders. Thus this letter, written in about 56 AD, opens with a plea for Christian unity, and is written in response to various issues raised by the Corinthians. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians provides us with the best insight into the church life of an early Christian community in the middle of the first century AD. Paul wrote a Second Letter to the Corinthians, again in response to issues that arose with time.
Mit brennender Sorge (German: "With burning concern") On the Church and the German Reich is a Catholic Churchencyclical of Pope Pius XI, published on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March).[1] Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (March 21 that year). It condemned breaches of the Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See[2] in 1933, criticised Nazism and its elevation of one race above others.[3] It criticised essentially those parts of Nazism that contradicted Catholicism, and condemned pantheistic confusion, neopaganism, "the so-called myth of race and blood", and statolatry i.e., idolatry of the State. It contained a vigorous defence of the Old Testament out of belief that it prepared the way for the New[4] and...
Quote:
"None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are 'as a drop of a bucket' (Isaiah 40:15)."
No, what's dangerous is following man-made doctrine or placing that above the Word of God.
Are you speaking of the Koran being the Word of God and the bible being man-made doctrine?
It was the Catholic Church that put the canon of text together we call the bible and the Catholic Church that founded the doctrine of the bible being the "word of God" or inspired by God.
Martin Luther was a Catholic monk that read the bible. I suppose that could have nothing to do with why he didn't go preaching the Koran to Germans eh?
Quote:
I admit my interpretation of that Scripture may be wrong...
Forget the Old Testament or even the whole of the New Testament, you don't read the 4 gospels with remarks from Jesus much.
I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
Quote:
...and if so, the Holy Spirit will correct me. Why do I need the Catholic Church if I have the Holy Spirit residing within me, leading and guiding me? that's a rhetorical question, no need to respond.
The Catholic answer would be that Christ and the Holy Spirit established the Catholic Church.
But my answer would be a bit more practical: The need for Petrine, Paulinian, authority. Apostolic authority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
