Crap.

Response:

From Christianity to Islam – A Journey of Faith By Tara Dooley, Chicago Tribune In retrospect, Carole Sturm traces her conversion to Islam to a prayer she uttered as a 15-year-old in a Roman Catholic church. It was the appeal of a spiritual teenager, raised in the church, the plea of a young woman who believed in God but struggled with the Catholic mysteries of faith and forgiveness. "I said, `God, show me what this

My name is Tahir and this is my journey from Islam to Christianity. Soon after arriving in the United States from Palestine 14 years ago, I married a nice Christian girl. She tried to become a Muslim to please me, but the more she did, the more I turned away from her. We had a child together, but the marriage didn

Have YOU been immersed as a believer?

No but I know an old lady who got her wooden leg stuck in a stormwater drain grating

Response:

etc. We see Baptists today, who STILL insist on full immersion believer’s baptism just as it happened in Jesus’ day, at His insistence. John – Find yourself somewhere that will let you have a bath in exchange for food stamps  - I don’t think all this showering is doing you any good. Lie in the bath with your duckies and toy battleships

I don’t think them is what johnny would play with in the bathtub? And when you pull the plug Imagine your stupidity going down the pipe with the water

Wouldn’t it take an aweful big drainpipe for that much stupid? ujb

Response:

etc. We see Baptists today, who STILL insist on full immersion believer’s baptism just as it happened in Jesus’ day, at His insistence.

John – Find yourself somewhere that will let you have a bath in exchange for food stamps  - I don’t think all this showering is doing you any good. Lie in the bath with your duckies and toy battleships And when you pull the plug Imagine your stupidity going down the pipe with the water

Response:

John, I am not understanding what your difficulty is. Please explain it to me.  I am not very fast so go slow. I have explained it repeatedly, and at least once or twice to you. I asked you to not use the KJV, or at LEAST  to post a warning at the top of your post that you ARE going to use it.

But WE AREN"T GOING TO OBEY ARE WE FOLKS ZAP- KERPOW   –  INCOMING KJV! – Ratta-tatta-tatta +++++++ "Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace. From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." (James)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Interceding Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore! Are you certain that you are indeed one of His believing children? As a member of His founded Church, yes.  Are you? When researching the history of the Catholic Church using public sources we find that many times they are reluctant to give the full truth as to when and by whom the Catholic Church was found.  Some are only willing to admit the church existed in the first century but most just avoid the issue altogether. There is no mention whatsoever of the "Roman Catholic Church" in the 1st or 2nd centuries. So get that ridiculous LIE out of your head. Just because they weren’t called that exact name at the time doesn’t mean they weren’t there. Yes, it does.

Please note your stated contradiction to this that immediatly follows.  Remember that distinct words such as "trinity" and "rapture" are not in the Bible. The word "trinity" does not appear, but the concept is repeated multiple times.

I think I see now.  This works only for YOUR beliefs and no one elses. And like you, I don’t find a "rapture" in the Bible. It is certainly not necessary to believe in a "rapture" to be a Christian. I believed in a rapture for MANY years until I read one book. "Christians will Live through the Tribulation…"

What’s so funny is that you don’t even realize you just contradicted yourslelf in the above responses.  Which is it?  "Because something was called that exact name at the time doesn’t mean it isn’t there" OR "if it’s not mentioned it’s not there"? One of those above phrases is true and the other is not. Make up your mind which.  You can’t have it both ways but I suspect you’re going to now justify why you can. "Sunday School" is not in the Bible, Sure it is. What do you call Sabbath School?  Sunday School was merely the Christian version.

But where is the exact word "Sunday" School.  (I’m merely using the same standard applied to me, you know). the term "Reverend" for a minister is not in the Bible, the word "Bible" is not in the Bible, The word "scripture" is.

But the word "Bible" isn’t.  The word "scripture" and "Bible" are different words. Notice the spelling? and many others are not specifically used in the Bible, either. In order for you to remain consistent, get those riduculous lies out of your head. There is neither a pope in the Bible, nor even the concept of a pope.

Matthew 16:18-19. The churches of the New Testament were autonomous.

No they weren’t. The absolute local autonomy of the local church group is a modern construct of today’s Baptists who were formed in the 17th century.  And by the way, democracy is a pagan invention. If the local groups of believers were autonomous, why were the Apostles writing intruction letters to them? Jesus did not leave us without an authority to decide once-and-for-all the disputes in the faith. It would have been cruel indeed for God to leave us without an authority who could definitively decide what’s what. Your cult isn’t. There WERE half-a-dozen denominations mentioned in the New Testament, including the Baptists and the Church of Christ, along with the Christians. There are no denominations in the Bible or among the early Christians. You aren’t reading with a trained eye. What do you call "John the Baptist" if not a "Baptist?"

Right. And they weren’t Christians. They were a distinct Jewish sect that were forerunners of Jesus, his disciples, and teachings.  (and nothing to do with today’s modern created denomination). There is the Church of Christ, there is the Christians, there is The Way. That’s 4 so far.

4 descriptive names for followers of ONE Church. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Merely because you have been taught to ignore the Bible in favor of Roman heresies doesn’t make you right. And I’d suggest you not "get into it" with me, as I’ve probably been a born-again Christian longer than you’ve been alive. There were scattered groups of Christ’s followers who were too new to the world to yet have a distinct and universal consensus as what to call them. Rubbish.  That is NOT what the Bible says. That is simply a lie you were taught, and were taught to not question.

Yes, I was taught not to question God or His Word.  I wouldn’t assume such arrogance and self-proclaimed authority [albeit the Bible's admonition that no Scripture is to be privately interpreted (i.e.. 2 Peter 1:20]). Such profound arrogance is second to only the arrogance and pride of Satan. FYI – the original Baptists are NOT among them. The Baptists in the Bible were followers of John the Baptist, not Jesus. FYI, the followers of John left him and followed Christ when Christ showed up.

If we go by the Bible, there were very few who did this.  John is the only one that records this and he says it was only 2 who left John for Jesus. (John 1:35-40). Not surprisingly, you’re totally ignoring what the Bible says.  I already cited Acts 19 which you ignored. When John was in prison while Jesus was preaching, John still had disciples (Matthew 11:2, Luke 7:18). What about the time John’s disciples went to Jesus to complain about Jesus’ disciples? (Matthew 9:14, Mark 2:18, Luke 5:33). When John was beheaded, AFTER Jesus began his ministry, the Bible says "his" disciples were the ones who buried him and (in Matthew) went to tell Jesus. (Matthew 14:12, Mark 6:29). What about the Mandaeans who are still around and in probability are the remainder of John’s disciples or the same pre-Christian sect John was from? The KEY point that you have sidestepped is the FACT that ALL the 1st C disciples followed Christ with immersion, believers’ baptism

That’s a change of subject (for which there is no difinitive proof for). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have YOU been immersed as a believer? I suggest you review Acts 19:1-5 as an example of how the "Baptist" followers of John had to be properly re-baptized as followers of Christ. AGAIN, you miss the larger point to make your own dot of the  i. jw snip

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Interceding Still not wiling to include me, eh, IKH? How Christian of you! I’ll pray for your arrogant soul. jw John, I am not understanding what your difficulty is. Please explain it to me.  I am not very fast so go slow. I have explained it repeatedly, and at least once or twice to you. I asked you to not use the KJV, or at LEAST  to post a warning at the top of your post that you ARE going to use it. Your last comment was, you didn’t see the big deal. I said, "how Christian!" You brush aside my needs, totally forgetting 1 Cor 13. And don’t try to play with me! jw snipp

Sorry.

Response:

to say left the following trash brags behind. Follow up not set, lets see if it pretends to understand the word of God. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Path: be2.nntpserver.com!newsfeed.ultrafeed.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!news feed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06! sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian. biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com alt.talk.creationism:269989 alt.religion.christian.baptist:730358 alt.religion.christian.biblestudy:351455 alt.religion.christianity:320843 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1020712 x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Interceding Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore!  As God is timeless and ageless, so also is Jesus Christ who is God come in the flesh(Matt 1:23).  All of history revolves around Him and everything is held together by Him.  And He lives to intercede for us! Guess he was asleep when he could have interceded for 150,000 people in asia!! Yet, he lives to intercede for us. Interesting concept. Interesting concept that you presume to speak for God.

So then, you are the only one that is allowed that privilege? not really, every xian, or follower off one of the revealed gods of the desert do that sooner or later. In your case, it is normally before you have figured out what is being discussed. Subtle hint, the gods are so evil according to the xian myth, that everyone of the followers have to tell others what they think everything means. Fair example, 2:1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the Lord’S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 2:3 And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 2:4 And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 2:5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord. 2:6 For Thou hast forsaken Thy people the house of Jacob; for they are replenished from the east, and with soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the brood of aliens. 2:7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land also is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots. 2:8 Their land also is full of idols; every one worshippeth the work of his own hands, that which his own fingers have made. 2:9 And man boweth down, and man lowereth himself; and Thou canst not bear with them. 2:10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, from before the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of His majesty. 2:11 The lofty looks of man shall be brought low, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. 2:12 For the Lord of hosts hath a day upon all that is proud and lofty, and upon all that is lifted up, and it shall be brought low; 2:13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan; 2:14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up; 2:15 And upon every lofty tower, and upon every fortified wall; 2:16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all delightful imagery. 2:17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be brought low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. 2:18 And the idols shall utterly pass away. 2:19 And men shall go into the caves of the rocks, and into the holes of the earth, from before the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of His majesty, when He ariseth to shake mightily the earth. Now, tell the audience what that means, why it was said, & what god means with the message. But then, you can’t. jw

walksalone who accepts that jw thinks it knows what it is talking about, but its posts say there are no indications that he even can read the *word of god*. —  The Hadith Qudsi 6 The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. The Almighty will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I fought for you until I died a martyr. He will say: You have lied – you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Interceding Still not wiling to include me, eh, IKH? How Christian of you! I’ll pray for your arrogant soul. jw

John, I am not understanding what your difficulty is. Please explain it to me.  I am not very fast so go slow. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore!  As God is timeless and ageless, so also is Jesus Christ who is God come in the flesh(Matt 1:23).  All of history revolves around Him and everything is held together by Him.  And He lives to intercede for us!  His eternal interest is to be our surety.  Day and night He offers our names before the Father in heaven.  No matter how weak we are, we are kept because Jesus Christ is our eternal High Priest. Our vision is of a risen, victorious, all-powerful and all-wise High Priest.  Quietly, triumphantly He pleads the worth and value of His own life and blood for the preservation and victory of God’s believing children. Are you certain that you are indeed one of His believing children? "But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the the sons of God,  even to them that believe on His name"(John 1:12).

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Interceding Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore! Are you certain that you are indeed one of His believing children? As a member of His founded Church, yes.  Are you? When researching the history of the Catholic Church using public sources we find that many times they are reluctant to give the full truth as to when and by whom the Catholic Church was found.  Some are only willing to admit the church existed in the first century but most just avoid the issue altogether. There is no mention whatsoever of the "Roman Catholic Church" in the 1st or 2nd centuries. So get that ridiculous LIE out of your head.

Just because they weren’t called that exact name at the time doesn’t mean they weren’t there.  Remember that distinct words such as "trinity" and "rapture" are not in the Bible. "Sunday School" is not in the Bible, the term "Reverend" for a minister is not in the Bible, the word "Bible" is not in the Bible, and many others are not specifically used in the Bible, either. In order for you to remain consistent, get those riduculous lies out of your head. There WERE half-a-dozen denominations mentioned in the New Testament, including the Baptists and the Church of Christ, along with the Christians.

There are no denominations in the Bible or among the early Christians. There were scattered groups of Christ’s followers who were too new to the world to yet have a distinct and universal consensus as what to call them. FYI – the original Baptists are NOT among them. The Baptists in the Bible were followers of John the Baptist, not Jesus.  I suggest you review Acts 19:1-5 as an example of how the "Baptist" followers of John had to be properly re-baptized as followers of Christ. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, that is N O mention of the Roman cesspool until well into the 4th  C.   Below, I have listed a series of citations from non-Catholic sources which are believed to be helpful in apologetics.  When you read them you’ll notice that each one admits certain details but does not discuss other details, of course it would not do well with Protestants if any encyclopedia came forward and stated " The Catholic Church was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ " but occasionally they’re forced to admit part of this truth such as the church existing from the first century or its connection to the apostles of Jesus Christ, is for this reason they become useful. Hogwash.

It’s always been good for a laugh over the last couple of years whenever you post the following.  By your reasoning, I can start my own denomination, call it "The Church of Antioch", then claim its authenticity simply because the same phrase appears in the Bible.  Stop thinking like a 10 year old. In the New Testament are listed Baptists

Void. First, see above.  Second, the current Baptist movement was started by John Symth in England who organized the first Baptist Church in 1609 to take Protestantism to its "logical conclusion."  There were flavors of Baptists in the early days in Germany and Switzerland who baptized infants and children. They were called Pedobaptists. Then there were the Anti-Pedobaptist who were opposed to infant baptism. The Anti-Pedibaptists won out.  Since both were "Baptists", how do you know which was right and which was wrong? Christians

"Christian" is not the name of a denomination though some would have you believe so.  It is a general term for all followers of Jesus, Catholics being Christians descended from the original apostolic group. Church of Christ

Which one? The United Church of Christ came into being in 1957.  The International Church of Chirst began in 1979.  Since there are two, one must be from the Bible, the other must be false (although they’re both 20th century). Please indicate for us which one. The Way

One of the more modern cults which was founded in 1942 by Victor Paul Weirwille who claims God audibly spoke to him. As author of such books called "Jesus Christ is not God," his cult can’t even be closely considered as being Biblically referenced. They deny the Trinity. 7th Day Adventists

Created by proven false visionary Ellen White in the mid-1800’s by combining the false beliefs of wierdo Baptist minister William Miller’s followers, Joseph Bates and Hiram Edson. Judaizers (Calvinists)

The Jewish Christians in the Bible we call "Judaizers" are long gone and have absolutely NOTHING to do with Calvinism.  Calvinism was started by the MAN John Calvin in 1536. NO I mean N  O  mention of the Roman Catholic Cesspool until the 4th C.

The Catholic Church existed since its founding in A.D. 33.  If you want to be really technical, we can say that we who identify ourselves as the current ROMAN Catholic Church didn’t really exist until A.D. 1054 when the Church founded by Jesus split in two with the other half becoming the Orthodox Church. Protestants many times would like us to believe there was no early church structure or for that matter a specific early church and that Constantine "created" the Roman Catholic Church. they would also like us to believe there was no  standardized early church leadership and no universal church leadership, That is correct.  We see absolutely NO "church structure" or "church leadership" or "hierarchy" before the Roman debacle.

You believe pseudo-history, I’ll believe history. all of these were creations of the third and fourth century.  Although as a stated above not everyone the citations is as explicit as we may want them to be their very useful against the pseudo-history. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD… lie.

Ostrich Syndrone. Did all those non-Catholic sources stating the Catholic Church was the original upset you that much? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – jw snipped same old same old RCC feces.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes  copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Interceding Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore! Are you certain that you are indeed one of His believing children? As a member of His founded Church, yes.  Are you? When researching the history of the Catholic Church using public sources we find that many times they are reluctant to give the full truth as to when and by whom the Catholic Church was found.  Some are only willing to admit the church existed in the first century but most just avoid the issue altogether. There is no mention whatsoever of the "Roman Catholic Church" in the 1st or 2nd centuries. So get that ridiculous LIE out of your head. There WERE half-a-dozen denominations mentioned in the New Testament, including the Baptists and the Church of Christ, along with the Christians.

These were not denominations as we know them today. Certainly they were not the same as the denominations of today. Church history shows the beginnings of these separate denominational groups of today, and it was not back in the NT. No, that is N O mention of the Roman cesspool until well into the 4th  C.

Since Jeremiah 17:9 applies to both your heart and mine, it is fair to say that it is no more of a cesspool than that. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Below, I have listed a series of citations from non-Catholic sources which are believed to be helpful in apologetics.  When you read them you’ll notice that each one admits certain details but does not discuss other details, of course it would not do well with Protestants if any encyclopedia came forward and stated " The Catholic Church was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ " but occasionally they’re forced to admit part of this truth such as the church existing from the first century or its connection to the apostles of Jesus Christ, is for this reason they become useful. Hogwash.   In the New Testament are listed Baptists Christians Church of Christ The Way 7th Day Adventists Judaizers (Calvinists)

No denomination of today has NT roots. None. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NO I mean N  O  mention of the Roman Catholic Cesspool until the 4th C. Protestants many times would like us to believe there was no early church structure or for that matter a specific early church and that Constantine "created" the Roman Catholic Church. they would also like us to believe there was no  standardized early church leadership and no universal church leadership, That is correct.  We see absolutely NO "church structure" or "church leadership" or "hierarchy" before the Roman debacle. all of these were creations of the third and fourth century.  Although as a stated above not everyone the citations is as explicit as we may want them to be their very useful against the pseudo-history. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD… lie. jw snipped same old same old RCC feces.

Response:

Interceding Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore!  As God is timeless and ageless, so also is Jesus Christ who is God come in the flesh(Matt 1:23).  All of history revolves around Him and everything is held together by Him.  And He lives to intercede for us!

Then he should have inteceded when the Asian tsunami wave commenced killing fifty thousand innocent children on His birthday His eternal interest is to be our surety.

Bullshit  Day and night He offers our names before the Father in heaven.

meaningless rubbish No matter how weak we are, we are kept because Jesus Christ is our eternal High Priest.

see above Our vision is of a risen, victorious, all-powerful and all-wise High Priest.

aaaah so you have seen Him have you?  then you are the only one who has.  was He black, Brow, white, bearded.  human?  why human since there are billions of species on this planet, why did you god choose to make man in His own image? He didn’t of course, arrogant man wanted an imaginary power that looked like himself. Pathetic  Quietly, triumphantly He pleads the worth and value of His own life and blood for the preservation and victory of God’s believing children.

AND heard him too – magnificent.  you are on your own Are you certain that you are indeed one of His believing children?

yes one of those 50,000 dead ones – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the the sons of God,   even to them that believe on His name"(John 1:12).

Response:

Interceding Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore!  As God is timeless and ageless, so also is Jesus Christ who is God come in the flesh

Rouladen?

Response:

Interceding Jesus Christ is our Lord, God’s Christ and our Savior and He lives forevermore! Are you certain that you are indeed one of His believing children?

As a member of His founded Church, yes.  Are you? When researching the history of the Catholic Church using public sources we find that many times they are reluctant to give the full truth as to when and by whom the Catholic Church was found.  Some are only willing to admit the church existed in the first century but most just avoid the issue altogether.  Below, I have listed a series of citations from non-Catholic sources which are believed to be helpful in apologetics.  When you read them you’ll notice that each one admits certain details but does not discuss other details, of course it would not do well with Protestants if any encyclopedia came forward and stated " The Catholic Church was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ " but occasionally they’re forced to admit part of this truth such as the church existing from the first century or its connection to the apostles of Jesus Christ, is for this reason they become useful. Protestants many times would like us to believe there was no early church structure or for that matter a specific early church and that Constantine "created" the Roman Catholic Church. they would also like us to believe there was no  standardized early church leadership and no universal church leadership, all of these were creations of the third and fourth century.  Although as a stated above not everyone the citations is as explicit as we may want them to be their very useful against the pseudo-history. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD…The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia

I am made sad when I come on these newsgroups and see the rampant attacks against Roman Catholic faith from those who do not understand, nor attempt to hear the truth from us. If someone were to walk up to you and tell you what they believe, you do not tell them "No, you believe this…" and use that "you believe this" as an argument against the validity of their faith.  This being said, here is my reflection on various issues of Catholic faith which are under attack here: Statues and icons: The present of statues and icons in our churches reflect the origin of our tradition.  We area deeply rooted in Meditteranean antiquity.  Though they are statues and though we may kneel before them (usually kneeling at votive candles), you are false in concluding that we are worshipping those statues or feel that those statues possess some sort of power.  I often touch my hand and kiss the statue, or touch the foot of the statue.  That is not worshipping the statue.  It is a symbolic action, giving honor to the saints that have come before me.  I would do the same to the Holy Father (touch and kiss his foot) which is a sincere sign of respect and reverence to a very venerable person. Just as I would turn to my fellow brothers and sisters on earth, I also turn to the saints and angels in heaven, asking them to pray for me and to join in my prayers and to care and concern for my soul and health. Mary as the Queen of Heaven: I have explained this as best as I could but you haven’t heard me nor have you made any effort to listen. Extension of faith beyond scripture: The bible isn’t the Word.  Jesus Christ is the Word. scripture is incomplete:  It says so itself. We are also told to uphold tradition.  As for saint "worship": The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English.  It comes from old english: "weorthscipe" which is a condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity.  To worship someone is to label them venerable, honorable, worthy, and excellent.  To worship is to show honor or respect to.  Though one may give honor to a saint, it doesn’t mean we worship them as gods. We do worship saints and angels and our venerable brothers and sisters, but not as we worship and love God. Here’s the deal: Catholic faith is one rooted deeply in symbolism.  Your narrow-minded and shallow faith cannot understand such symbolism because you only graze the surface when you witness us in prayer.  Here is an accurate portrait of the Catholic Church on Earth: God told us to pray unceasingly.  That is exactly what Cahtolics do!  When we recite these prayers that you call "evil chants and repetetive nonsense" we aren’t beginning to pray but joining in the prayer. There is not one second on earth that goes by where mass isn’t being said somewhere.  I would be comfortable in saying that on Sunday alone, mass starts in the Northeast at 8AM, then 12PM… by the time the 12PM is done, it rotates into the next timezone.  By the time we are done in the US, it starts up in other countries.  If there is a time when mass isn’t being said, the prayers are continued through rosary.  The Apostle’s or Nicene Creed are always being spoken.  The Lord’s Prayer is always being spoken, and somewhere, the mysteries of the rosary are being recited.  This is not ceasing.  When we begin to pray, we are joining in these prayers with the saints and angels in heaven.  Here is what the prayer sounds like: "Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth!  Lord God, heavenly King, have mercy on us.  Lord God, lamb of God, you take away the sins of hte world, have mercy on us!  Our Father in heaven, holy is your name, may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.  Lead us away from temptation and deliver us from evil.  We believe in you, God, father almight, maker of heaven and earth.. and in Jesus Christ, your only son, our Lord.  He was born of the virgin Mary, suffered under puntius pilot, was crucified, died, and was buried.  He rose from the dead and is seated at Your right hand.  He will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead and your kingdom will have no end." It continues: Lord Jesus, you take away the sins of the world. Lord have Mercy. Christ Jesus, you take away the sins of the world, graciously hear us. Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, make our hearts like yours." "Hallelujah! Hallelujah to you, Heavenly Father.  We adore you, we give you thanks, we praise You for your glory!" This is going on NON-STOP!  Millions upon millions of people are crying these prayers straight from their heart to the heavens, singing them to Our Heavenly Father, to Lord Jesus Christ, the lamb and Word of God!  Calling upon the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts and rain the water of life upon us! You call this sin… you call this pagan… you call this beautiful and tranquil and solemn unceasing prayer evil and satanic… it is a pray straight from the hearts of devout Roman Catholics which shakes the foundations of the earth and causes people to tremble in fervent prayer! You think we are bored… though some are (those who aren’t devout), you don’t understand that even in our silence, our mind dwells on the light, love, and sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Yet you attempt to bring us down… you attempt to discourage us by your arguments which are based in fallacy.  Understand that I am telling you the truth, that my account on my Catholic faith and the faith of my devout friends is true and pure and good and one that is centered around God.  It is through the Catholic Church that we have come to join in this prayer to God and through the guidance of the Church that we have grown closer to Him and have become one with Him.  The Church doesn’t give salvation, the Church guides us to Christ who gives salvation, for the Church is the means to which the fullness of salvation is understood.  Jesus Christ is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.  We are a part of the body of the Church, and are one with Christ.  To be separate from the Chruch is to be separate from Christ. Many protestants belong to this Church through baptism by desire, without knowing it they are a part of the Church.  Those who try to bring it down are not.  They are of the depths.  Please understand that I am concerned for you, brothers and sisters, who attempt with all their time and effort to destroy the fabric of the Church established by Christ.  Your mission is futile… and it is based in stereotypes, prejudice, misunderstanding, and fallacy. I will pray for you all -Robert

Response:

That can be debated.  The RCC is losing ground in Europe and seems to only be doing well in backward, third world countries with ignorant and superstitious citizens. Are you saying that if someone reaches a different conclusion about Faith and God than you then they are ignorant and superstitious? That seems to be a rather narcissistic point of view. So why does the Church take that stance?

**  great lampoon, Alan.. —

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3045122.stm Pakistan’s Shia-Sunni divide Differences between Pakistan’s Sunni majority and Shia minority go back to the Islamic schism following the prophet’s death. But in the past two decades those differences have been manifest in repeated violence wrought by Sunni and Shia extremists. The violence, which worsened after 11 September and the expulsion of the Taleban from Afghanistan, led President Pervez Musharraf to ban a number of militant groups. However, the BBC’s Zaffar Abbas in Islamabad says recent attacks show the extremists who were forced into hiding by the clampdown are now resurfacing. Great schism In early Islamic history the Shia were a political faction ("party of Ali") that supported the power of Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed and the fourth caliph (temporal and spiritual ruler) of the Muslim community. Ali was murdered in 661AD and his chief opponent, Muawiya, became caliph. It was Ali’s death that led to the great schism between Sunnis and Shias. Caliph Muawiya was later succeeded by his son Yazid, but Ali’s son Hussein refused to accept his legitimacy and fighting between the two resulted. Hussein and his followers were massacred in battle near Karbala in AD680. Both Ali and Hussein’s death gave rise to the Shia cult of martyrdom and sense of betrayal. Shia has always been the rigid faith of the poor and oppressed waiting for deliverance. It is seen as a messianic faith which awaits the coming of the "hidden Imam", Allah’s messenger who will reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice. Today, they make up about 15% of the total worldwide Muslim population Zia’s legacy Most sectarian violence in Pakistan takes place in the province of Punjab and the country’s commercial capital, Karachi, in Sindh province. There have also been outbreaks in Quetta, capital of Balochistan province. It is estimated that around 4,000 people have been killed in Shia-Sunni violence since the 1980s across Pakistan. President Musharraf is not the only Pakistani leader to have been beset with such problems, which most analysts agree began in 1979 when General Zia ul-Haq began Islamicising Pakistani politics to legitimise his military rule. As a result, hardline religious groups were strengthened. This coincided with a period when parts of Pakistan came to be awash with weaponry as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979. US arms and Saudi funds allowed General Zia to mount a proxy war in Afghanistan with mujahideen, or holy warriors. Drawn from Pakistani as well as Afghan and Arab youths mostly educated at religious schools, the mujahideen and their patrons were to become influential actors in Pakistan. Because Sunnis form a large majority in Pakistan, most of the mujahideen were Sunni too. Radical Sunni Islamists were able to establish armed groups like the Sipah-e-Sahaba. Revolutionary zeal Shia fighters too joined the jihad, or holy war, against the Soviets in Afghanistan, although their bands were smaller. In Karachi, doctors have been targeted They received help from Iran where the Islamic revolution earlier in 1979 had boosted Shia confidence. The growth of Shia militancy led to the establishment of groups such as Tehrik-e-Jafria. Once the Soviets left Afghanistan, Pakistani militants returned home and began looking for a new jihad. Many were encouraged to take their combat skills to Indian-administered Kashmir. Others stayed at home to begin a campaign against fellow-Muslims they considered heretics or against Westerners and Christians. After dozens were killed in sectarian attacks, General Musharraf launched a campaign against extremism in January 2002, banning the worst-offending groups. However, continuing attacks have shown the limitations of the government’s policy. And violence in Balochistan puts a further strain on Pakistan’s security forces which are faced with challenges from the Taleban and remnants of al-Qaeda, and have to deal with confrontations with India over Kashmir.

Response:

G, we get the point. Why not just say "Treat everyone except Muslims with respect, please!" and save yourself some time.

Response:

http://atheism.about.com/library/irf/irf00/blirf_saudiarabia00.htm Saudi Arabia Religious Freedom Report 2000 Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without constitutional protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of other religions. Private worship by non-Muslims, as defined by the Government, is recognized officially. Through published interviews with government officials and press articles that addressed the subject in the context of human rights, non-Islamic freedom to worship privately received more attention and greater respect than in the previous year. The overwhelming majority of citizens support an Islamic state and oppose public non-Muslim worship. There is a greater degree of tolerance of foreigners and non-Muslims in both the eastern and western provinces than in the isolated central Nejd region. There is institutionalized discrimination against adherents of the Shi’a branch of Islam. The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, the U.S. Ambassador, and other U.S. government officials have raised the issue of religious freedom with the Government on numerous occasions during the period covered by this report. Section I. Government Policies on Freedom of Religion Legal/Policy Framework Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of other religions. Private worship by non-Muslims is permitted. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy and the Government has declared the Islamic holy book, the Koran, and the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad, to be the country’s Constitution. The Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to the precepts of the rigorously conservative and strict interpretation of the Hanbali school of the Sunni branch of Islam and discriminates against other branches of Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concepts of separation of religion and state, and such separation does not exist. Islamic practice generally is limited to that of the Wahabi order, which adheres to the Hanbali school of the Sunni branch of Islam as interpreted by Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahab, an 18th century Saudi religious reformer. Practices contrary to this interpretation, such as visits to the tombs of renowned Muslims, are discouraged. The practice of other schools of Sunni Islam is discouraged, and there is institutionalized discrimination against adherents of the Shi’a branch of Islam. The Government supervises almost all mosques in the country and funds their construction, maintenance, and operations. Religious Demography Sunni Muslims make up approximately 12.1 million of the country’s nearly 14 million citizens. Seven million foreigners reside in the country, including about 1.2 million Indians, 1.2 million Egyptians, nearly 800,000 Pakistanis, 600,000 Filipinos, 130,000 Sri Lankans, and 30,000 Americans. These foreigners include Muslims of different denominations, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and, presumably, non-believers and atheists. Comprehensive statistics for the denominations of foreigners are not available. However, the Filipino Embassy reports that over 90 percent of the Filipino community (or over half a million persons) is non-Muslim, including Catholics and Protestants. The Shi’a Muslim minority (roughly 900,000 persons) lives mostly in the eastern province, where Shi’a constitute about one-third of the population. Governmental Restrictions on Religious Freedom The Ministry of Islamic affairs directly supervises, and is a major source of funds for, the construction and maintenance of almost all mosques in the country. The Ministry pays the salaries of imams (prayer leaders) and others who work in the mosques. A governmental committee is responsible for defining the qualifications of imams. The Mutawwa’in (religious police, who make up the Committee to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice) are government employees, and the president of the Mutawwa’in holds the rank of cabinet minister. The spreading of Muslim teachings not in conformance with the officially accepted interpretation of Islam is prohibited. Writers and other individuals who publicly criticize this interpretation, including both those who advocate a stricter interpretation and those who favor a more moderate interpretation than the Government’s, reportedly have been imprisoned and faced other reprisals. During the period covered by this report, foreign imams were barred from leading worship during the most heavily attended prayer times and prohibited from delivering sermons during Friday congregational prayers. The Government claims that its actions were part of its "Saudiization" plan to replace foreign workers with citizens. Under Shari’a (Islamic law), upon which the Government bases its jurisprudence, conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy. Public apostasy is a crime punishable by death if the accused does not recant. The Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, lashing, and deportation for engaging in overt religious activity that attracts official attention. During the period covered by this report, two group arrests were made after religious police raided large Christian congregations during services that were held on Friday, the Muslim day of rest. Proselytizing by non-Muslims is illegal, including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials such as Bibles. No foreign missionaries operate legally in the country. During the period covered by this report, two Filipino men were arrested, charged with proselytizing, and forced to serve approximately 2 months in prison. Members of the Shi’a minority are the objects of officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination. Prior to 1990, the Government prohibited Shi’a public processions during the Islamic month of Muharram and restricted other processions and congregations to designated areas in the major Shi’a cities. Since 1990, the authorities have permitted the celebration of the Shi’a holiday of Ashura in the eastern province city of Qatif, provided that the celebrants do not undertake large, public marches or engage in self-flagellation (a traditional Shi’a practice). No other Ashura celebrations are permitted in the Kingdom, and many Shi’a travel to Qatif or to Bahrain to participate in Ashura celebrations. The Government seldom permits private construction of Shi’a mosques. Shi’a have declined government offers to build state-supported mosques because the Government would prohibit the incorporation and display of Shi’a motifs in any such mosques. The Government actively discourages Shi’a travel to Iran to visit pilgrimage sites, although Shi’a citizens are permitted to visit holy sites in Iraq. Persons wearing religious symbols of any kind in public risk confrontation with the Mutawwa’in. This general prohibition against religious symbols also applies to Muslims. A Christian wearing a crucifix or a Muslim wearing a Koranic necklace in public might be admonished. A very strict conservative Islamic dress code requiring extreme modesty is enforced for Muslim and non-Muslim women alike. Particularly in the more conservative Nejd region, virtually all women wear an abaya (a long black cloak), and many wear a headscarf while in public. Failure to do so can lead to admonishment by Mutawwa’in, and in the past occasionally has led to arrest. Male modesty also is required. Males going shirtless or in short pants while in public also risk admonishment. Islamic religious education is mandatory in public schools at all levels. All children receive religious instruction, which generally is limited to that of the Hanbali school of Islam. In accordance with Shari’a, Saudi women are prohibited from marrying non-Muslims, but Saudi men may marry Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims. The Government requires noncitizens to carry Iqamas, or legal resident identity cards, which contain a religious designation for "Muslim" or "non-Muslim." Governmental Abuses of Freedom of Religion A Filipino man was arrested in June 1999 and another Filipino man was arrested in July 1999. Both men were charged with proselytizing, served approximately 2 months in prison, and subsequently were deported. There were two group arrests of Filipino Christians made during the period covered by the report, one of 13 persons in October 1999 and another of 16 persons in January 2000. Both arrests occurred after religious police raided large Christian congregations during services held on Friday, the local day of rest. In both instances, government officials maintained that the religious services were attended by such a large number of persons that they could not be considered private. Some of those arrested were charged with illegal assembly and all detainees subsequently were deported to the Philippines. There were reports that the authorities arrested a Christian man in June 2000 for possession of a videotape of a religious event. There were no formal charges brought against him and he remained in custody at the end of the period covered by this report. There were no reports that government security forces arrested or detained Shi’a on the suspicion of subversion and pro-Iranian activities, as had been reported in the past. In April 2000, in the city of Najran, in the southwest region bordering Yemen, riots took place in which members of the Makarama Ismaili Shi’a community reportedly engaged in gun battles with security forces. Some press reports indicated that the rioting followed the arrest of a Makarama Ismaili Shi’a imam and some of his followers on charges of "sorcery." Various other reports attributed the unrest to the closure of two Ismaili Shi’a mosques and the … read more »

Response:

http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/001327.html A 14 year old boy is sentenced to 85 lashes for breaking his Ramadan fast! Iran Press News Tuesday, November 16, 2004 A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th, after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan. The Kurdish site Rojeh’heh L

I like your logic. However, Pascal’s wager is like the Super Lotto if you factor in all the religions and also the fact that to choose one means you may not be able to live life as frrely as you may have wished.  It’s like betting the mortgage on number 485743 because that’s a very popular number. After losing the mortgage and living your life starngely, you die and discover that you a just dead. No regrets however. Who could have known back in 600 BC  that an insignificant little band of nomads called the Jews had the only true God on their side. Seems you have to bet on the long shots to win this game. I think the best bet is with the little known Bidayuh tribe of Borneo. I hear the shamans perform miracles. I haven’t seen Christians doing miracles lately. A little head shrinking, a little body piercing and bobs-your-uncle, your in. Jeff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please point out the flaws, inaccuracies and false information in my argument (I am sure there are plenty): It seems to me that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the most logical Church to join out of all the Christian denominations.  This belief is built on the assumption that I don’t know which denomination is more truthful or correct than the others.  Pascal’s wager shows that it is better to follow a religion than not to (although for the purposes of the current argument, the religions from which to choose are limited to the various Christian denominations).  Therefore, the first factor affecting the decision is that the Church must promise an afterlife of eternal punishment for nonmembers.  This means that if the teachings of this Church turn out to be true, then you have protected yourself from eternal punishment.  If not, then you still might be punished eternally, but your chances have been reduced.  Out of the remaining Christian denominations (most of them), we want to choose the one that will qualify us for salvation with as many different Christian denominations as possible.  On this basis the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to me to be the most logical. Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is attained by faith lived out through good works, rather than by faith alone.  The sacraments are required to impart God’s grace to the receiver.  Baptism cancels one’s prior sins and mortal sins must be confessed in order to avoid eternal punishment. The main idea in Protestant denominations is that every person can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Most Protestant denominations require Baptism, either to cancel the receiver’s sins, or at least as an affirmation of one’s faith.  Protestantism assumes that good works will come as a result of faith, but are not a means to salvation in themselves. The Eastern Orthodox believe that ultimately salvation comes only from the grace of God, but God’s grace and right belief are expected to produce changes in behaviour.  They believe that "faith worketh through love".  i.e.. faith and morality cannot exist without each other.  Hence, both faith and good works are necessary for salvation. The Sacred Mysteria (Sacraments) impart grace to the receiver. Baptism is required for salvation, and repentance of sins is necessary to avoid being condemned to hell. Other Christian denominations (although I haven’t looked at all of the smallest ones) outside of these larger groups, like the Churches of Christ, Unification Church, Quakers, Millerites, Unitarian Universalism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Christian Science, Gnostic Christians, Liberal Catholic Church, New Apostolic Church, Swedenborgian Churches, Religious Science and Unitarian seem either to claim to be "non-dogmatic", or do not promise an eternal punishment for non-believers, or promise salvation through faith alone, like the Protestant denominations. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church should satisfy the requirements for salvation of most denominations shouldn’t they?  As long as you have faith, and are baptized by immersion (some denominations don’t accept baptism by sprinkling) in the name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit (more denominations do this than baptism in the name of Jesus Christ), then you will be saved according to most Protestant denominations/denominations which teach salvation by faith alone, won’t you? If so, then the question arises, how does one choose between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?  Well, the Eastern Orthodox teach that outside the Eastern Orthodox Church, there is no salvation that they know of.  However, with God, they believe anything is possible, so they pass no judgement and make no comment on the salvation of non-Orthodox Christians.  i.e.. they take no official view on the salvation of those outside the Eastern Orthodox Church; they don’t know. The current Roman Catholic doctrine on salvation outside the Church says that "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism. . . have a right to be called Christians, and. . . are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church", and "Christ’s spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation".  It says that, "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it or remain in it".  Since we don’t know what is true and what isn’t, as we said above, we can’t know whether the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God etc. or not. Therefore, we can be saved if we join another Christian denomination, according to Catholicism.  Indeed, the Catechism of the RCC says that, "Those ‘who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.’  With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist’". Hence, Roman Catholicism teaches that if one becomes a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, they can still achieve salvation.  The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, gives no such assurance regarding the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore, if one joins the Eastern Orthodox Church, then they will maximise their chances of salvation across all the Christian denominations. Thanks in advance for any feedback

Response:

Please point out the flaws, inaccuracies and false information in my argument (I am sure there are plenty): It seems to me that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the most logical Church to join out of all the Christian denominations.  This belief is built on the assumption that I don’t know which denomination is more truthful or correct than the others.  Pascal’s wager shows that it is better to follow a religion than not to (although for the purposes of the current argument, the religions from which to choose are limited to the various Christian denominations).  Therefore, the first factor affecting the decision is that the Church must promise an afterlife of eternal punishment for nonmembers.  This means that if the teachings of this Church turn out to be true, then you have protected yourself from eternal punishment.  If not, then you still might be punished eternally, but your chances have been reduced.  Out of the remaining Christian denominations (most of them), we want to choose the one that will qualify us for salvation with as many different Christian denominations as possible.  On this basis the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to me to be the most logical. Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is attained by faith lived out through good works, rather than by faith alone.  The sacraments are required to impart God’s grace to the receiver.  Baptism cancels one’s prior sins and mortal sins must be confessed in order to avoid eternal punishment. The main idea in Protestant denominations is that every person can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Most Protestant denominations require Baptism, either to cancel the receiver’s sins, or at least as an affirmation of one’s faith.  Protestantism assumes that good works will come as a result of faith, but are not a means to salvation in themselves. The Eastern Orthodox believe that ultimately salvation comes only from the grace of God, but God’s grace and right belief are expected to produce changes in behaviour.  They believe that "faith worketh through love".  i.e.. faith and morality cannot exist without each other.  Hence, both faith and good works are necessary for salvation. The Sacred Mysteria (Sacraments) impart grace to the receiver. Baptism is required for salvation, and repentance of sins is necessary to avoid being condemned to hell. Other Christian denominations (although I haven’t looked at all of the smallest ones) outside of these larger groups, like the Churches of Christ, Unification Church, Quakers, Millerites, Unitarian Universalism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Christian Science, Gnostic Christians, Liberal Catholic Church, New Apostolic Church, Swedenborgian Churches, Religious Science and Unitarian seem either to claim to be "non-dogmatic", or do not promise an eternal punishment for non-believers, or promise salvation through faith alone, like the Protestant denominations. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church should satisfy the requirements for salvation of most denominations shouldn’t they?  As long as you have faith, and are baptized by immersion (some denominations don’t accept baptism by sprinkling) in the name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit (more denominations do this than baptism in the name of Jesus Christ), then you will be saved according to most Protestant denominations/denominations which teach salvation by faith alone, won’t you? If so, then the question arises, how does one choose between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?  Well, the Eastern Orthodox teach that outside the Eastern Orthodox Church, there is no salvation that they know of.  However, with God, they believe anything is possible, so they pass no judgement and make no comment on the salvation of non-Orthodox Christians.  i.e.. they take no official view on the salvation of those outside the Eastern Orthodox Church; they don’t know. The current Roman Catholic doctrine on salvation outside the Church says that "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism. . . have a right to be called Christians, and. . . are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church", and "Christ’s spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation".  It says that, "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it or remain in it".  Since we don’t know what is true and what isn’t, as we said above, we can’t know whether the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God etc. or not. Therefore, we can be saved if we join another Christian denomination, according to Catholicism.  Indeed, the Catechism of the RCC says that, "Those ‘who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.’  With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist’". Hence, Roman Catholicism teaches that if one becomes a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, they can still achieve salvation.  The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, gives no such assurance regarding the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore, if one joins the Eastern Orthodox Church, then they will maximise their chances of salvation across all the Christian denominations. Thanks in advance for any feedback

Response:

Guys – this stuff is really off topic for alt.religion.scientology. In case you havent bothered to read any of the group, what goes on here is mainly a discussion of scientology, by members and critics. (that’s a rather polite way of putting it – the group can get quite hostile at times) Lot of critics post news articles about the less pleasant side of the church, discuss plans for informing the public about the dangers of the church, etc. The scientologists tend to post critisisms of psychiatry, stuff praising hubbard, etc. COuld ya do me a favor and drop alt.religion.scientology rom the headers? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "jw x-no-archive: yes  john w replied under copyright 2004 <snip for reply only I’ve actually seen a like quiz. Point #1 – Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Point #2 – All three questions present a person or persons who have believed in Christ and repented.  Therefore they are Born Again of Living Water and The Holy Spirit. Point #3 – Even without the Bible people have believed and repented, they too are Born of Living Water and the Holy Spirit.  So the Bible isn’t even necessary, it’s good to have although God can accomplish His will without it. Recall Scripture in that no one comes to the Father unless the Father draws them.  Further, no one comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ.  We aren’t even necessary.  That is part of the nature of God.  Lest we forget that He is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. Thanks JohnW. You are SO welcome!  And I will hold further comment on your comments ( )  until others have responded. Vaya con Dios! jw Go this day with the Lord our God, Deacon we are atoms, in Gods mind we choose our destinies by our choices we will either live free and grow…or die as slaves ITs…our choice is ritual bio-borg’ism worth the price one must pay in order to play…? why not abolish money and find out for free…!? why not break out of ritual’ized, canned and created reality called the monied dream of evil personified, hiding in plain sight as fraternal capitalist priests playing "overlords-of-humanity" with ruthless pavlovian-inspired brainwashed greed, for profit, gain, and growth…acting as parasites on the collective souls of humanity…? Sad, but True. Capitalism is the love of money…and the addiction personified, in denial. Instead, learn how to share for free, without money? Spread the wealth by helping fill pockets of lack…by doing what one chooses to do, or do without…for free, without money limiting choices. utopianow.cjb.net abolishmoney.com ubarter.com hope this helps pass it on d

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "jw x-no-archive: yes  john w replied under copyright 2004 <snip for reply only I’ve actually seen a like quiz. Point #1 – Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Point #2 – All three questions present a person or persons who have believed in Christ and repented.  Therefore they are Born Again of Living Water and The Holy Spirit. Point #3 – Even without the Bible people have believed and repented, they too are Born of Living Water and the Holy Spirit.  So the Bible isn’t even necessary, it’s good to have although God can accomplish His will without it. Recall Scripture in that no one comes to the Father unless the Father draws them.  Further, no one comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ.  We aren’t even necessary.  That is part of the nature of God.  Lest we forget that He is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. Thanks JohnW. You are SO welcome!  And I will hold further comment on your comments ( )  until others have responded. Vaya con Dios! jw Go this day with the Lord our God, Deacon we are atoms, in Gods mind we choose our destinies by our choices we will either live free and grow…or die as slaves ITs…our choice is ritual bio-borg’ism worth the price one must pay in order to play…? why not abolish money and find out for free…!? why not break out of ritual’ized, canned and created reality called the monied dream of evil personified, hiding in plain sight as fraternal capitalist priests playing "overlords-of-humanity" with ruthless pavlovian-inspired brainwashed greed, for profit, gain, and growth…acting as parasites on the collective souls of humanity…? Sad, but True. Capitalism is the love of money…and the addiction personified, in denial. Instead, learn how to share for free, without money? Spread the wealth by helping fill pockets of lack…by doing what one chooses to do, or do without…for free, without money limiting choices. utopianow.cjb.net abolishmoney.com ubarter.com hope this helps pass it on d

Sounds like someone has been free-basing Tillich and Kierkegaard… the question had nothing to do with: 1) Coram Huminibus (righteousness with man) 2) Your opinion of the Roman Catholic Church 3) Money Salvation comes from our Lord. When was I justified? Well, there are 2 prime examples of justification (Or being JUDGED as INNOCENT before God): 1) Objective Justification: When Christ died on the cross. He didn’t do it for certain people, it was done for all. 2) Subjective Justification: The day I came to believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior. This, like the Lord’s death on the cross, was not MY saving work, but a work of the Holy Spirit. (See Ephesians 2:8-10) Now, along with Justification, you have SANCTIFICATION (or being "made holy"). This gets back to being a Work of the Holy Spirit. It is only through the Holy Spirit that one is able to come to know and believe in Jesus Christ. Now, as for the saving work of Baptism: Q1) Does it save? (why / why not) Q2) Why does it save? A1) The water itself is not what saves. It is with the Word of God with the water and faith which trusts in the Word of God in the water. A2)Because Christ said it does: Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit As for the Bible…. well, that’s never even been implied that it is required for salvation. You have to remember that the early Church fathers didn’t even HAVE a Bible (as we know it, today) back then. That kind of thinking came with the biblicists of the post-reformation era. It was an idea the the fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists pushed (and continue to push). Like a lot of their doctrines, it was not really based on anything other than a lack of hermenutical and exegetical understandings. Hope this helped….. SHALOM!

Response:

"jw – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes  john w replied under copyright 2004 <snip for reply only I’ve actually seen a like quiz. Point #1 – Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Point #2 – All three questions present a person or persons who have believed in Christ and repented.  Therefore they are Born Again of Living Water and The Holy Spirit. Point #3 – Even without the Bible people have believed and repented, they too are Born of Living Water and the Holy Spirit.  So the Bible isn’t even necessary, it’s good to have although God can accomplish His will without it. Recall Scripture in that no one comes to the Father unless the Father draws them.  Further, no one comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ.  We aren’t even necessary.  That is part of the nature of God.  Lest we forget that He is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. Thanks JohnW. You are SO welcome!  And I will hold further comment on your comments ( )  until others have responded. Vaya con Dios! jw Go this day with the Lord our God, Deacon

we are atoms, in Gods mind we choose our destinies by our choices we will either live free and grow…or die as slaves ITs…our choice is ritual bio-borg’ism worth the price one must pay in order to play…? why not abolish money and find out for free…!? why not break out of ritual’ized, canned and created reality called the monied dream of evil personified, hiding in plain sight as fraternal capitalist priests playing "overlords-of-humanity" with ruthless pavlovian-inspired brainwashed greed, for profit, gain, and growth…acting as parasites on the collective souls of humanity…? Sad, but True. Capitalism is the love of money…and the addiction personified, in denial. Instead, learn how to share for free, without money? Spread the wealth by helping fill pockets of lack…by doing what one chooses to do, or do without…for free, without money limiting choices. utopianow.cjb.net abolishmoney.com ubarter.com hope this helps pass it on d

Response:

Not magisterial anything, and not tradition.  SCRIPTURES is what they checked.  Try again.

Most likely what they checked was the TANACK. After all, it is hard to check something that one is part of. dnp bardi

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : I wrote that in Acts 17, Paul is teaching to the people of Thessalonica, and he is teaching them and reasoning with them out of the scriptures See verse 2. My argument was that Paul was teaching these people. We find out in verse 2, that he was using scriptures. Now, what was he teaching. That Christ had risen from the dead, and the Jesus was the Christ. See verse 3.  That sounds very New Testament to me. Then I quoted verse 11, where it says the more noble than those at Thessalonica, received THE WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So, what do we know from Acts 17. Paul was teaching from the scriptures (verse 2). What was he preaching, The risen Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ (verse 3). What did the more noble ones do. (verse 11). They received Paul’s WORD, with eagerness, But they checked the scriptures to see if what he told them was true. I quoted Verse 11 from a few different bibles. And TDP’s comments. Lets see. Acts 17: 11 – New International Version Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. That doesn’t imply scripture only…… It doesn’t imply what. Paul was teaching to them, and they checked the scriptures to see what he told them was true. No, TDP you are right. It does not imply. It says, they checked the scriptures daily, to see if what Paul was preaching was true. Doesn’t imply scripture only, Read what the verse say?? They checked the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was preaching was true. Can you read, It says the Scriptures was what they were reading. Doesn’t imply scriptures only. It implies nothing. It says They checked the scriptures daily. What else do you want to read into that. Do you see in your obvious blindness, some word other than scripture. It does not imply scripture only to you, because you don’t want it to. Lets read more of TDP obvious bias. The rest snipped due to your constant repeating of "They searched the Scripture Daily"  This does not indicate  "Sola Scriptura"  it defines the fact that scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told.  Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. TDP, you bias is evident. Read the piece that you wote. See they searched the bible daily. Then you say it defines the fact that the scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told. What is that EDP. What is checking the scriptures to see if what they were told is true. Isn’t that sola scriptura. Let’s repeat his last conclusion. Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. Was Paul using magesterial teachings and tradition. The bible uses teaching and tradition interchangerably in many instances. What did the people check to the scriptures. Paul’s word. Hey, that sounds like magisterial teachings and tradition to me. Yep

Not magisterial anything, and not tradition.  SCRIPTURES is what they checked.  Try again. Lets examine, his statement that the CHURCH came first. Acts again, Look at chapter 20, verse 20. Where was Paul teaching in public. From house to house. Isn’t that amazing? There was no church, there were groups of believers and Paul taught house to house. But in Acts 17, Paul taught from scriptures, and the more noble ones, checked what he taught them, by daily reading the scriptures. Lie

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.  11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Not a lie at all.  Why would they search the scriptures if they couldn’t understand them?  How could they "find out" anything if they didn’t have understanding? The lie is the rcc. Isn’t that informative, when compared to TDP’s obvious implying. All pretty simple. When the church leaders teach you, you really should check it to the scriptures. LOL!  Oh yeah like my understanding is beyond the Churches.

Like the Bereans checking the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.  But then, those Bereans obviously didn’t NEED to have Paul "explain" what the scriptures said.  They used the scriptures to measure the truth or not-truth of what Paul said.  The measuring rod was the scriptures, not what Paul (the church) said. You aren’t up to that type of thing? Because there is a way that is right unto God, and a way that is right unto men. One should check the way that seems right unto man, to the word of God. And to you TDP, I would say, please go to the bible to find out what it says. Bible is not the sole authority, Church came long before.

The Bible IS Authority, and your "evolved" religon is measured by it, just as the Bereans measured what Paul said by scripture.  Since your "evolved" (apostate) religion doesn’t measure up well, we cannot claim your religion is an authority at all in matters of God. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Don’t go there trying to prove something you have already decided. That way you will tend to read more accurately. What I am saying New Prophet is that the Bible is not the sole authority.  Yes, there may be some bias on part because I truly believe in the Churches Teachings.  The Church preceded the Bible by some 400 years and without the Magisterium you have self interpretation.   No you don’t.  You have what the scriptures SAY (if God cannot communicate well enough, how can your frail old man in rome do better?).  You have the HOLY SPIRIT guiding us Christians in our understanding.  That is HIS job, not an old man in rome’s job. That’s right the Holy Spirit through the Church.

That is through US.  We Christians ARE the church.  Not the rcc, a political/religious "evolved" religion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. 28 "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 "Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. Of course, you catholics pooh-pooh that concept because you cannot read the Bible on your own and make sense of it, huh? Now,  self interpretation leads to all sorts of ideas about what Scripture says.   If you sit twenty people down in a room and have all 20 read the same verse, you will get all sorts of interpretations as to what that verse is saying.   If you say so. This is why there are so many denonminations outside the Church Jesus established.  In others words it’s total chaos!   So your religion has brainwashed you into believing.  In reality, we evangelical Christians get along quite well, have Bible studies together, pray together, have fellowship together, praise God together.  Do you rcc’rs and orthodoxers get together for such stuff? I don’t think you do. Sure we do. On the other hand,  the Church has one belief system and one leader to guides us worldwide.   And That leader is Jesus Christ, not a feeble old man in rome. That is correct! The idea of Sola Scriptura came along some 1500 years after Christs’ death.  I guess we will agree to disagree. Peace Be With You! Tony And to you.

in Christ Jesus, Christian

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : No you don’t.  You have what the scriptures SAY (if God cannot communicate well enough, how can your frail old man in rome do better?).  You have the HOLY SPIRIT guiding us Christians in our understanding.  That is HIS job, not an old man in rome’s job. Nor Peter, in that case, but Jesus gave him the job of feeding his sheep.  I guess your lot back then accused Jesus of usurping the role of the Holy Spirit.

Try again.  We have Peter, Paul, and all of the rest who penned scripture. But Peter never claimed to be "pope."  Your religion just made that up. Christian

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : I wrote that in Acts 17, Paul is teaching to the people of Thessalonica, and he is teaching them and reasoning with them out of the scriptures See verse 2. My argument was that Paul was teaching these people. We find out in verse 2, that he was using scriptures. Now, what was he teaching. That Christ had risen from the dead, and the Jesus was the Christ. See verse 3.  That sounds very New Testament to me. Then I quoted verse 11, where it says the more noble than those at Thessalonica, received THE WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So, what do we know from Acts 17. Paul was teaching from the scriptures (verse 2). What was he preaching, The risen Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ (verse 3). What did the more noble ones do. (verse 11). They received Paul’s WORD, with eagerness, But they checked the scriptures to see if what he told them was true. I quoted Verse 11 from a few different bibles. And TDP’s comments. Lets see. Acts 17: 11 – New International Version Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. That doesn’t imply scripture only…… It doesn’t imply what. Paul was teaching to them, and they checked the scriptures to see what he told them was true. No, TDP you are right. It does not imply. It says, they checked the scriptures daily, to see if what Paul was preaching was true. Doesn’t imply scripture only, Read what the verse say?? They checked the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was preaching was true. Can you read, It says the Scriptures was what they were reading. Doesn’t imply scriptures only. It implies nothing. It says They checked the scriptures daily. What else do you want to read into that. Do you see in your obvious blindness, some word other than scripture. It does not imply scripture only to you, because you don’t want it to. Lets read more of TDP obvious bias. The rest snipped due to your constant repeating of "They searched the Scripture Daily"  This does not indicate  "Sola Scriptura"  it defines the fact that scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told.  Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. TDP, you bias is evident. Read the piece that you wote. See they searched the bible daily. Then you say it defines the fact that the scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told. What is that EDP. What is checking the scriptures to see if what they were told is true. Isn’t that sola scriptura. Let’s repeat his last conclusion. Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. Was Paul using magesterial teachings and tradition. The bible uses teaching and tradition interchangerably in many instances. What did the people check to the scriptures. Paul’s word. Hey, that sounds like magisterial teachings and tradition to me.

Yep Lets examine, his statement that the CHURCH came first. Acts again, Look at chapter 20, verse 20. Where was Paul teaching in public. From house to house. Isn’t that amazing? There was no church, there were groups of believers and Paul taught house to house. But in Acts 17, Paul taught from scriptures, and the more noble ones, checked what he taught them, by daily reading the scriptures.

Lie Isn’t that informative, when compared to TDP’s obvious implying. All pretty simple. When the church leaders teach you, you really should check it to the scriptures.

LOL!  Oh yeah like my understanding is beyond the Churches. Because there is a way that is right unto God, and a way that is right unto men. One should check the way that seems right unto man, to the word of God. And to you TDP, I would say, please go to the bible to find out what it says.

Bible is not the sole authority, Church came long before. Don’t go there trying to prove something you have already decided. That way you will tend to read more accurately. What I am saying New Prophet is that the Bible is not the sole authority.  Yes, there may be some bias on part because I truly believe in the Churches Teachings.  The Church preceded the Bible by some 400 years and without the Magisterium you have self interpretation.   No you don’t.  You have what the scriptures SAY (if God cannot communicate well enough, how can your frail old man in rome do better?).  You have the HOLY SPIRIT guiding us Christians in our understanding.  That is HIS job, not an old man in rome’s job.

That’s right the Holy Spirit through the Church. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. 28 "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 "Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. Of course, you catholics pooh-pooh that concept because you cannot read the Bible on your own and make sense of it, huh? Now,  self interpretation leads to all sorts of ideas about what Scripture says.   If you sit twenty people down in a room and have all 20 read the same verse, you will get all sorts of interpretations as to what that verse is saying.   If you say so. This is why there are so many denonminations outside the Church Jesus established.  In others words it’s total chaos!   So your religion has brainwashed you into believing.  In reality, we evangelical Christians get along quite well, have Bible studies together, pray together, have fellowship together, praise God together.  Do you rcc’rs and orthodoxers get together for such stuff? I don’t think you do.

Sure we do. On the other hand,  the Church has one belief system and one leader to guides us worldwide.   And That leader is Jesus Christ, not a feeble old man in rome.

That is correct! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The idea of Sola Scriptura came along some 1500 years after Christs’ death.  I guess we will agree to disagree. Peace Be With You! Tony And to you. in Christ Jesus, Christian

Response:

No you don’t.  You have what the scriptures SAY (if God cannot communicate well enough, how can your frail old man in rome do better?).  You have the HOLY SPIRIT guiding us Christians in our understanding.  That is HIS job, not an old man in rome’s job.

Nor Peter, in that case, but Jesus gave him the job of feeding his sheep.  I guess your lot back then accused Jesus of usurping the role of the Holy Spirit. God bless, Stephen — — Stephen Korsman www.theotokos.co.za www.theotokos.co.za/adventism IC | XC NI | KA

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : I wrote that in Acts 17, Paul is teaching to the people of Thessalonica, and he is teaching them and reasoning with them out of the scriptures See verse 2. My argument was that Paul was teaching these people. We find out in verse 2, that he was using scriptures. Now, what was he teaching. That Christ had risen from the dead, and the Jesus was the Christ. See verse 3.  That sounds very New Testament to me. Except the scriptures were not written by the time the events in Acts 17 occured.

Absolutely correct.  Paul & company were preaching Jesus Christ from the OLD TESTAMENT, showing the prophesies that were fulfilled, etc. And they were checking to see if the OLD TESTAMENT really said those things. Now we have the WHOLE BOOK, so we check the WHOLE book.  That doesn’t change the concept at all. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Then I quoted verse 11, where it says the more noble than those at Thessalonica, received THE WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So, what do we know from Acts 17. Paul was teaching from the scriptures (verse 2). What was he preaching, The risen Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ (verse 3). What did the more noble ones do. (verse 11). They received Paul’s WORD, with eagerness, But they checked the scriptures to see if what he told them was true. Yes but the key here is that they were not looking at the New Testament to confirm those things.  They were checking the Old Testament (Since they were in the Greek World probably the Septuagint) to check if the events Paul taught about Christ matched up with what was written about the Messiah.  In other words they were accepting the Oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and using scripture to determine that these teachings were not contrary to scripture.

In other words they were DECIDING whether or NOT to accept what Paul said, checking SCRIPTURE to see if Paul was lying or telling the truth. No "interpretation" required.  No "one man leader" required.  Just God’s Holy Spirit guiding them to see what the TEXT SAID. Just like today. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I quoted Verse 11 from a few different bibles. And TDP’s comments. Lets see. Acts 17: 11 – New International Version Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. That doesn’t imply scripture only…… It doesn’t imply what. Paul was teaching to them, and they checked the scriptures to see what he told them was true. No, TDP you are right. It does not imply. It says, they checked the scriptures daily, to see if what Paul was preaching was true. Doesn’t imply scripture only, Read what the verse say?? They checked the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was preaching was true. Can you read, It says the Scriptures was what they were reading. Doesn’t imply scriptures only. It implies nothing. It says They checked the scriptures daily. What else do you want to read into that. Do you see in your obvious blindness, some word other than scripture. It does not imply scripture only to you, because you don’t want it to. It can’t imply scripture only.  

What they checked was scripture only.  That is the ONLY THING it says they checked.  NOTHING beyond that. DID Jesus fulfil the prophesies?  IS what Paul said about these things true ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE?  That is what they were doing. They were checking to see if what Paul claimed about Jesus was true of the Messiah and that therefore Jesus was the Messiah.  That he would be born of a virgin into the House of David, and that he would have to die.  Nowhere did the scriptures they checked contain the specific information about what Jesus taught or many of the things he did because many of those things were not in scripture yet.  They were searching for evidence that what Paul taught was contrary to scripture.

NOT ONE WORD about "contrary to scripture," but that they "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." NOT that they searched the scriptures to see if these things were "NOT SO." You are trying to give a negative twist that is not there. They were checking to see if Paul was right, not trying to prove him wrong.  There is a difference. And they were themselves (without any old man in rome to "interpret" for them) checking scripture to see.  WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAID would be the measuring rod for measuring what Paul said, not the other way around. No requirement for an old man in rome to "interpret" the scriptures for them so they could understand what the scriptures meant. Not then.  Not today. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lets read more of TDP obvious bias. The rest snipped due to your constant repeating of "They searched the Scripture Daily"  This does not indicate  "Sola Scriptura"  it defines the fact that scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told.  Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. TDP, you bias is evident. Read the piece that you wote. See they searched the bible daily. Then you say it defines the fact that the scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told. What is that EDP. What is checking the scriptures to see if what they were told is true. Isn’t that sola scriptura. Nope its not.  It is using scripture as a check on teachings.

Using the scriptures to MEASURE THE ACCURACY OF THE SPEAKERS.  Not requiring an old man in rome to tell them what the scriptures mean, but reading the scriptures with understanding, then MEASURING THE ACCURACY OF THE SPEAKERS by that understanding. No different in Baptist churches today.  The pastor or someone else preaches a sermon, going through a book of the Bible, giving a more thorough understanding of what it teaches (based upon study in English, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and all of the odditional tools at his disposal).  We Christians in the pews CHECK THE SCRIPTURES to MEASURE THE ACCURACY OF THE SPEAKER, just as the Bereans did. Apparently you roman catholics don’t do that.  It is true that most of you don’t know how. Obviously there are many things that are true that are not in the Bible (for example no where does the Bible say how far away the Sun is from the Earth).  It is true that everything in the Bible is true and therefore if Paul had taught anything that was contrary to scripture then his whole teaching would have been corrupt.

On the other hand, the Old Testament DOES say a whole lot about the coming messiah (Jesus), and they DID have scripture that addressed that.  And THAT is what Paul and company were speaking of, not scientific drivel. <snipped the part about the church or the Scriptures coming first I did that because whoever wrote it has not discerned that "the church" was not a "religious organization," but a loosely knit group of "congregations" (that is what the word "church," GK "ekklesia" means. . .a group of people gathered together for a purpose.  NOTHING in the word about "religous organization" at all.  They had secular farm meetings (ekklesias) that were not part of Christianity at all). Isn’t that informative, when compared to TDP’s obvious implying. All pretty simple. When the church leaders teach you, you really should check it to the scriptures. Yes, you should definitely check it against scripture but just because you don’t find the teaching there, it doesn’t mean what they teach you is false or even that it is not in scripture (after all the Bible is a big book, it could be easy to overlook something in scripture).

Not as many of us as there are who examine it daily!  And any "new" teaching cannot contradict the SCRIPTURAL TEACHING (which is from God) and be of God. Like a feeble old man in rome having a "special ability" to "interpret" the scriptures for everyone else Like the statues Like praying to folks who have died Like pretending Mary was God’s mother, or co-redemtrix. Like unmarried leaders in the church Like infant Baptism etc etc etc etc In the Name of Jesus Christ    | ____    |    | Christian

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I wrote that in Acts 17, Paul is teaching to the people of Thessalonica, and he is teaching them and reasoning with them out of the scriptures See verse 2. My argument was that Paul was teaching these people. We find out in verse 2, that he was using scriptures. Now, what was he teaching. That Christ had risen from the dead, and the Jesus was the Christ. See verse 3.  That sounds very New Testament to me. Then I quoted verse 11, where it says the more noble than those at Thessalonica, received THE WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So, what do we know from Acts 17. Paul was teaching from the scriptures (verse 2). What was he preaching, The risen Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ (verse 3). What did the more noble ones do. (verse 11). They received Paul’s WORD, with eagerness, But they checked the scriptures to see if what he told them was true. I quoted Verse 11 from a few different bibles. And TDP’s comments. Lets see. Acts 17: 11 – New International Version Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. That doesn’t imply scripture only…… It doesn’t imply what. Paul was teaching to them, and they checked the scriptures to see what he told them was true. No, TDP you are right. It does not imply. It says, they checked the scriptures daily, to see if what Paul was preaching was true. Doesn’t imply scripture only, Read what the verse say?? They checked the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was preaching was true. Can you read, It says the Scriptures was what they were reading. Doesn’t imply scriptures only. It implies nothing. It says They checked the scriptures daily. What else do you want to read into that. Do you see in your obvious blindness, some word other than scripture. It does not imply scripture only to you, because you don’t want it to. Lets read more of TDP obvious bias. The rest snipped due to your constant repeating of "They searched the Scripture Daily"  This does not indicate  "Sola Scriptura"  it defines the fact that scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told.  Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. TDP, you bias is evident. Read the piece that you wote. See they searched the bible daily. Then you say it defines the fact that the scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told. What is that EDP. What is checking the scriptures to see if what they were told is true. Isn’t that sola scriptura. Let’s repeat his last conclusion. Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. Was Paul using magesterial teachings and tradition. The bible uses teaching and tradition interchangerably in many instances. What did the people check to the scriptures. Paul’s word. Hey, that sounds like magisterial teachings and tradition to me. Lets examine, his statement that the CHURCH came first. Acts again, Look at chapter 20, verse 20. Where was Paul teaching in public. From house to house. Isn’t that amazing? There was no church, there were groups of believers and Paul taught house to house. But in Acts 17, Paul taught from scriptures, and the more noble ones, checked what he taught them, by daily reading the scriptures. Isn’t that informative, when compared to TDP’s obvious implying. All pretty simple. When the church leaders teach you, you really should check it to the scriptures. Because there is a way that is right unto God, and a way that is right unto men. One should check the way that seems right unto man, to the word of God. And to you TDP, I would say, please go to the bible to find out what it says. Don’t go there trying to prove something you have already decided. That way you will tend to read more accurately. What I am saying New Prophet is that the Bible is not the sole authority.  Yes, there may be some bias on part because I truly believe in the Churches Teachings.  The Church preceded the Bible by some 400 years and without the Magisterium you have self interpretation.  

No you don’t.  You have what the scriptures SAY (if God cannot communicate well enough, how can your frail old man in rome do better?).  You have the HOLY SPIRIT guiding us Christians in our understanding.  That is HIS job, not an old man in rome’s job. John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.  26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.  27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.  28 "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.  29 "Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. Of course, you catholics pooh-pooh that concept because you cannot read the Bible on your own and make sense of it, huh? Now,  self interpretation leads to all sorts of ideas about what Scripture says.   If you sit twenty people down in a room and have all 20 read the same verse, you will get all sorts of interpretations as to what that verse is saying.  

If you say so. This is why there are so many denonminations outside the Church Jesus established.  In others words it’s total chaos!  

So your religion has brainwashed you into believing.  In reality, we evangelical Christians get along quite well, have Bible studies together, pray together, have fellowship together, praise God together.  Do you rcc’rs and orthodoxers get together for such stuff? I don’t think you do. On the other hand,  the Church has one belief system and one leader to guides us worldwide.  

And That leader is Jesus Christ, not a feeble old man in rome. The idea of Sola Scriptura came along some 1500 years after Christs’ death.  I guess we will agree to disagree. Peace Be With You! Tony

And to you. in Christ Jesus, Christian

Response:

I wrote that in Acts 17, Paul is teaching to the people of Thessalonica, and he is teaching them and reasoning with them out of the scriptures See verse 2. My argument was that Paul was teaching these people. We find out in verse 2, that he was using scriptures. Now, what was he teaching. That Christ had risen from the dead, and the Jesus was the Christ. See verse 3.  That sounds very New Testament to me.

Except the scriptures were not written by the time the events in Acts 17 occured. Then I quoted verse 11, where it says the more noble than those at Thessalonica, received THE WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So, what do we know from Acts 17. Paul was teaching from the scriptures (verse 2). What was he preaching, The risen Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ (verse 3). What did the more noble ones do. (verse 11). They received Paul’s WORD, with eagerness, But they checked the scriptures to see if what he told them was true.

Yes but the key here is that they were not looking at the New Testament to confirm those things.  They were checking the Old Testament (Since they were in the Greek World probably the Septuagint) to check if the events Paul taught about Christ matched up with what was written about the Messiah.  In other words they were accepting the Oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and using scripture to determine that these teachings were not contrary to scripture. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I quoted Verse 11 from a few different bibles. And TDP’s comments. Lets see. Acts 17: 11 – New International Version Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. That doesn’t imply scripture only…… It doesn’t imply what. Paul was teaching to them, and they checked the scriptures to see what he told them was true. No, TDP you are right. It does not imply. It says, they checked the scriptures daily, to see if what Paul was preaching was true. Doesn’t imply scripture only, Read what the verse say?? They checked the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was preaching was true. Can you read, It says the Scriptures was what they were reading. Doesn’t imply scriptures only. It implies nothing. It says They checked the scriptures daily. What else do you want to read into that. Do you see in your obvious blindness, some word other than scripture. It does not imply scripture only to you, because you don’t want it to.

It can’t imply scripture only.  They were checking to see if what Paul claimed about Jesus was true of the Messiah and that therefore Jesus was the Messiah.  That he would be born of a virgin into the House of David, and that he would have to die.  Nowhere did the scriptures they checked contain the specific information about what Jesus taught or many of the things he did because many of those things were not in scripture yet.  They were searching for evidence that what Paul taught was contrary to scripture. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lets read more of TDP obvious bias. The rest snipped due to your constant repeating of "They searched the Scripture Daily"  This does not indicate  "Sola Scriptura"  it defines the fact that scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told.  Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. TDP, you bias is evident. Read the piece that you wote. See they searched the bible daily. Then you say it defines the fact that the scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told. What is that EDP. What is checking the scriptures to see if what they were told is true. Isn’t that sola scriptura.

Nope its not.  It is using scripture as a check on teachings. Obviously there are many things that are true that are not in the Bible (for example no where does the Bible say how far away the Sun is from the Earth).  It is true that everything in the Bible is true and therefore if Paul had taught anything that was contrary to scripture then his whole teaching would have been corrupt. Let’s repeat his last conclusion. Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. Was Paul using magesterial teachings and tradition. The bible uses teaching and tradition interchangerably in many instances. What did the people check to the scriptures. Paul’s word. Hey, that sounds like magisterial teachings and tradition to me. Lets examine, his statement that the CHURCH came first.

The Church did come before the New Testament.  The Church was founded as it were at the Last Supper and went public at Pentacost, decades before the first word of the New Testament would be written by Paul. Acts again, Look at chapter 20, verse 20. Where was Paul teaching in public. From house to house. Isn’t that amazing? There was no church, there were groups of believers and Paul taught house to house. But in Acts 17, Paul taught from scriptures, and the more noble ones, checked what he taught them, by daily reading the scriptures.

Groups of believers are not the Church?  What is the Church if not the groups of believers?  Reading the scriptures is certainly noble and just and indeed there can be nothing in Tradition that is contrary to scripture but that does not mean that scripture is the sum total of all truth.  It wasn’t when Paul was spreading the words in Acts (if it was then why did Paul need to spread the word to those who read scripture) and it is not now.  It is however the highest truth. Isn’t that informative, when compared to TDP’s obvious implying. All pretty simple. When the church leaders teach you, you really should check it to the scriptures.

Yes, you should definitely check it against scripture but just because you don’t find the teaching there, it doesn’t mean what they teach you is false or even that it is not in scripture (after all the Bible is a big book, it could be easy to overlook something in scripture). — Bill

Response:

May 13th – St. Erconwald Bishop of London, died about 690. He belonged to the princely family of the East Anglian Offa, and devoted a considerable portion of his patrimony to founding two monasteries, one for monks at Chertsey, and the other for nuns at Barking in Essex. Over the latter he placed hiss sister, St. Ethelburga, as abbess. He himself discharged the duties of superior at Chertsey. Erconwald continued his monastic life till the death of Bishop Wini in 675, when he was called to the See of London, at the instance of King Sebbi and Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury. As monk and bishop he was renowned for his holiness of life, and miracles were wrought in attestation of his sanctity. The sick were cured by contact with the litter on which he had been carried; this we have on the testimony of Venerable Bede. He was present in 686 at the reconciliation between Archbishop Theodore and Wilfrith. King Ini in the preface to his laws calls Erconwald "my bishop". During his episcopate he enlarged his church, augmented its revenues, and obtained for it special privileges from the king. According to an ancient epitaph, Erconwald ruled the Diocese of London for eleven years. He is said to have eventually retired to the convent of his sister in Barking, where he died 30 April. He was buried in St. Paul s, and his tomb became renowned for miracles. The citizens of London had a special devotion to him, and they regarded with pride the magnificence of his shrine. During the burning of the cathedral in 1087 it is related that the shrine and its silken coverings remained intact. A solemn translation of St. Erconwald’s body took place 14 Nov., 1148, when it was raised above the high altar. The shrine was robbed of its jewels and ornaments in the sixteenth century; and the bones of the saint are said to have been then buried at the east end of the choir. His feast is observed by English Catholics on 14 November. Prior to the Reformation, the anniversaries of St. Erconwald’s death and translation of his relics were observed at St. Paul’s as feasts of the first class, according to an ordinance of Bishop Braybroke in 1386. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05517a.htm <<<< Martyrology At Bologna, a commemoration of the precious death of Blessed Imelda, virgin, of the Order of Preachers After receiving the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, which she most ardently desired, she could not sustain the most intense fire of love. Her journey in life ended, she happily entered heaven to reign as a victim of love. A duplex feast. At Rome, the dedication of the church of St. Mary of the Martyrs. In the reign of the Emperor Phocas, Pope St. Boniface IV purified the Pantheon, the ancient temple of all the gods, and consecrated it in honor of our Lady and all the holy martyrs. But later, the Sovereign Pontiff, Gregory IV, decreed that the annual solemnity, now extended to honor all saints, should be observed by the Universal Church on November 1. At Constantinople, Blessed Mucius, priest and martyr. At the time of the Emperor Diocletian and the proconsul Laudicius, he was subjected to many penalties and tortures because of his faith. He was first tortured at Amphipolis in Macedonia; then he was taken to Constantinople where he was beheaded. At Alexandria, the commemoration of many holy martyrs, who were slain by the Arians in the church at Theonas on account of their Catholic faith. At Heraclea in Thrace, St. Glyceria, a Roman martyr. She suffered many grievous torments from the hands of the governor Sabinus in the reign of the Emperor Antoninus; but she escaped unharmed from them all by the help of God. At length she was cast to the wild beasts; when one of them had bitten her, she gave up her soul to God. At Utrecht, St. Servatius, Bishop of the Church of Tongres. His merits were made plain to all men by the fact that, in winter, when snow covered all the earth round about, it never fell upon his tomb, until by the zeal of the citizens a basilica was built thereon. His feast is observed May 22. <<<<< A prayer to Saint Raphael, the Archangel: Holy Ghost. Amen. Glorious archangel, St. Raphael, great prince of the heavenly court, illustrious by thy gifts of wisdom and grace,  guide of travelers by land and sea, consoler of the unfortunate and refuge of sinners, I entreat thee to help me in all my needs and in all the trials of this life,  as thou didst assist the young Tobias in his journeying. And since thou art the "physician of God",  I humbled pray to thee to heal my soul of its many infirmities and my body of the ills that afflict it,  if this favor is for my greater good.  I ask, especially, for angelic purity, that I may be made fit to be the living temple of the

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I wrote that in Acts 17, Paul is teaching to the people of Thessalonica, and he is teaching them and reasoning with them out of the scriptures See verse 2. My argument was that Paul was teaching these people. We find out in verse 2, that he was using scriptures. Now, what was he teaching. That Christ had risen from the dead, and the Jesus was the Christ. See verse 3.  That sounds very New Testament to me. Then I quoted verse 11, where it says the more noble than those at Thessalonica, received THE WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So, what do we know from Acts 17. Paul was teaching from the scriptures (verse 2). What was he preaching, The risen Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ (verse 3). What did the more noble ones do. (verse 11). They received Paul’s WORD, with eagerness, But they checked the scriptures to see if what he told them was true. I quoted Verse 11 from a few different bibles. And TDP’s comments. Lets see. Acts 17: 11 – New International Version Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. That doesn’t imply scripture only…… It doesn’t imply what. Paul was teaching to them, and they checked the scriptures to see what he told them was true. No, TDP you are right. It does not imply. It says, they checked the scriptures daily, to see if what Paul was preaching was true. Doesn’t imply scripture only, Read what the verse say?? They checked the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was preaching was true. Can you read, It says the Scriptures was what they were reading. Doesn’t imply scriptures only. It implies nothing. It says They checked the scriptures daily. What else do you want to read into that. Do you see in your obvious blindness, some word other than scripture. It does not imply scripture only to you, because you don’t want it to. Lets read more of TDP obvious bias. The rest snipped due to your constant repeating of "They searched the Scripture Daily"  This does not indicate  "Sola Scriptura"  it defines the fact that scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told.  Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. TDP, you bias is evident. Read the piece that you wote. See they searched the bible daily. Then you say it defines the fact that the scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told. What is that EDP. What is checking the scriptures to see if what they were told is true. Isn’t that sola scriptura. Let’s repeat his last conclusion. Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. Was Paul using magesterial teachings and tradition. The bible uses teaching and tradition interchangerably in many instances. What did the people check to the scriptures. Paul’s word. Hey, that sounds like magisterial teachings and tradition to me. Lets examine, his statement that the CHURCH came first. Acts again, Look at chapter 20, verse 20. Where was Paul teaching in public. From house to house. Isn’t that amazing? There was no church, there were groups of believers and Paul taught house to house. But in Acts 17, Paul taught from scriptures, and the more noble ones, checked what he taught them, by daily reading the scriptures. Isn’t that informative, when compared to TDP’s obvious implying. All pretty simple. When the church leaders teach you, you really should check it to the scriptures. Because there is a way that is right unto God, and a way that is right unto men. One should check the way that seems right unto man, to the word of God. And to you TDP, I would say, please go to the bible to find out what it says. Don’t go there trying to prove something you have already decided. That way you will tend to read more accurately.

What I am saying New Prophet is that the Bible is not the sole authority.  Yes, there may be some bias on part because I truly believe in the Churches Teachings.  The Church preceded the Bible by some 400 years and without the Magisterium you have self interpretation.   Now,  self interpretation leads to all sorts of ideas about what Scripture says.   If you sit twenty people down in a room and have all 20 read the same verse, you will get all sorts of interpretations as to what that verse is saying.  This is why there are so many denonminations outside the Church Jesus established.  In others words it’s total chaos!  On the other hand,  the Church has one belief system and one leader to guides us worldwide.  The idea of Sola Scriptura came along some 1500 years after Christs’ death.  I guess we will agree to disagree. Peace Be With You! Tony – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

I wrote that in Acts 17, Paul is teaching to the people of Thessalonica, and he is teaching them and reasoning with them out of the scriptures See verse 2. My argument was that Paul was teaching these people. We find out in verse 2, that he was using scriptures. Now, what was he teaching. That Christ had risen from the dead, and the Jesus was the Christ. See verse 3.  That sounds very New Testament to me. Then I quoted verse 11, where it says the more noble than those at Thessalonica, received THE WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So, what do we know from Acts 17. Paul was teaching from the scriptures (verse 2). What was he preaching, The risen Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ (verse 3). What did the more noble ones do. (verse 11). They received Paul’s WORD, with eagerness, But they checked the scriptures to see if what he told them was true. I quoted Verse 11 from a few different bibles. And TDP’s comments. Lets see. Acts 17: 11 – New International Version Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

That doesn’t imply scripture only…… It doesn’t imply what. Paul was teaching to them, and they checked the scriptures to see what he told them was true. No, TDP you are right. It does not imply. It says, they checked the scriptures daily, to see if what Paul was preaching was true. Doesn’t imply scripture only, Read what the verse say?? They checked the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was preaching was true. Can you read, It says the Scriptures was what they were reading. Doesn’t imply scriptures only. It implies nothing. It says They checked the scriptures daily. What else do you want to read into that. Do you see in your obvious blindness, some word other than scripture. It does not imply scripture only to you, because you don’t want it to. Lets read more of TDP obvious bias. The rest snipped due to your constant repeating of "They searched the Scripture Daily"  This does not indicate  "Sola Scriptura"  it defines the fact that scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told.  Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. TDP, you bias is evident. Read the piece that you wote. See they searched the bible daily. Then you say it defines the fact that the scripture was read daily to see if there was any truth to what they were told. What is that EDP. What is checking the scriptures to see if what they were told is true. Isn’t that sola scriptura. Let’s repeat his last conclusion. Again, the Bible only therory has no truth. The Bible is truth but so are magisterail teachings and tradition and the fact that the Church came first. Was Paul using magesterial teachings and tradition. The bible uses teaching and tradition interchangerably in many instances. What did the people check to the scriptures. Paul’s word. Hey, that sounds like magisterial teachings and tradition to me. Lets examine, his statement that the CHURCH came first. Acts again, Look at chapter 20, verse 20. Where was Paul teaching in public. From house to house. Isn’t that amazing? There was no church, there were groups of believers and Paul taught house to house. But in Acts 17, Paul taught from scriptures, and the more noble ones, checked what he taught them, by daily reading the scriptures. Isn’t that informative, when compared to TDP’s obvious implying. All pretty simple. When the church leaders teach you, you really should check it to the scriptures. Because there is a way that is right unto God, and a way that is right unto men. One should check the way that seems right unto man, to the word of God. And to you TDP, I would say, please go to the bible to find out what it says. Don’t go there trying to prove something you have already decided. That way you will tend to read more accurately.

Response:

x-no-archive: yes  john_w replied Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible? Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any messages… If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…" Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!! And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!! Blessings, Leo

We’ve been around and around and around and around this a hundred times. Perhaps you’d like to look through Google by subject. jw

Response:

x-no-archive: yes

 john_w replied under copyright you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either.

idols aren’t in the Bible (except that they’re forbidden), the eating/drinking of blood is forbidden, there’s no hint or suggestion of purgatory in the Bible; nor is there a command or an example of infant baptism in the Bible. There’s no HINT of apostolic succession in the Bible as Christ CLEARLY PERSONALLY appointed each apostle. There’s no suggestion of indulgences, no suggestion that there would be one "pastor" over HUNDREDS of thousands of churches.  No suggestion ANYWHERE that there would be ONE church or ONE denomination. But they can criticize the final authority of scripture? LOL!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Christian

Response:

x-no-archive: yes

 john_w replied under copyright – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either. Non sequitur.  BTW, how do you know II Timothy 3:16 is inspired?  Still too tough a question?

To hard-core apostates like you, who will NEVER accept God’s authority over the RCC cult, no scripture will ever explain away your heresies and apostasies. I could find you 20 verses that would prove the authority of scripture; you’d simply go to the DC, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Graham Kerr, Rudi Giuliani, or anyone else you could quote giving the RCC the FINAL authority. You simply don’t want God to be all-powerful; you want fallible men to be all-powerful. The RCC religion is simply a different religion with only RESEMBLANCES to Christianity as Christ taught it. jw

Response:

x-no-archive: yes

 john_w replied – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either. Non sequitur.  BTW, how do you know II Timothy 3:16 is inspired?  Still too tough a question? Could it be because it was also in tongues?

What was " in tongues", Ray?  What you are quoting is merely Latin.   jw  16  omnis scriptura divinitus – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia 17  ut perfectus sit homo Dei ad omne opus bonum instructus — Tiger [Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]

Response:

where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either. Christian

Completely irrelevant, since Catholics don’t claim to follow "The Bible Alone" anyway. — God Bless,   Michael

Response:

alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic): Oh you mean the NEW stuff you produce denying the baptism of the Holy Ghost and your forbidding people speaking in tongues???

What on earth are you talking about??? — God Bless,   Michael

Response:

And it NEVER says ola pope either!  Nor does it say "college of cardinals."  Or infallible pope.  Or mary, mother of God either. But we don’t care. Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura. We don’t need Biblical permission.

So true, Hell is open for everyone that doesn’t accept the Bible and its hot on that trip. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BAM

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either.

Christian, With respect a few issues. 1. The basic question here is how does one justify the idea of Sola Scriptura.  If you have only scripture to base your faith on how do you know that Scriture is really the word of God.  Catholics believe in the Bible because the Bible is affirmed by the Tradition of the church. 2. While the Papacy is not clearly spelled out in scripture, Peter’s primacy among the apostles is.  The rest of course is affirmed from Tradition. 3. Mary mother of God is not in the Bible?  Correct me if I am wrong? Mary is clearly listed in the Bible as the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God.  Therefore it is clear that Mary is the Mother of God.  Now perhaps you believe that Catholics believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus’s divine nature?  I assure you that the Catholic Church does not believe that; we believe that she bore the divine and human nature united in her womb, but that the Divine nature is eternal and came from the Father. 4. Mary forever virgin is indeed not listed anywhere in scripture but is a tradition that comes from the earliest days of the Church. — Bill

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It doesn’t and that is why sola scriptura is a lie.   So using your own "logic," the papacy is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), mary as the mother of God is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), mary as redemptrix is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), and mary forever virgin is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either).

Not quite.  The Catholic Church has Tradition to back its claims up. Scripture does not have anything internal to it that supports the notion of Sola Scriptura.  Further, as I pointed out some of the things you claim are not in the Bible either are in fact or at least have some support in the Bible.  Further just because something is not in the Bible does not make it a lie.  If i discovered extra-biblical evidence that Jesus had black hair would that be a lie because the Bible doesn’t say anything about the color of his hair? The basic problem with Sola Scriptura is this.  How do you know the Bible is the sole source of truth in your faith?  Usually the answer goes something like this.. Because God says so.  The counter argument is how do you know God says so?  and the answer usually is something along the lines of because the bible says so.  In other words its a circular argument. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You can’t just apply your own logic to one point without including the other points like it. You can’t pick the Bible up and interpret it the way you want.  You must have Magisterial Teaching, Scripture and Tradition that is what Devine Revelation is.  None of these can exist without the other.   Pure nonsense.  The Bible is for: 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;  17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Since SCRiPTURE is for teaching, and all that stuff, the SCRIPTURE must be "up to the task."

And yet you can have two men of faith pick up the Bible read the same passage and yet both will claim it means different things?  If Scripture alone was all that was necessary it should be the case that all churches in the world would agree with each other over what the Bible says, yet it does not.  The Bible is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, etc.  However that usefulness comes in context of the Church and Tradition. SHOW ME "magisterial teaching" in the Scripture, or by your own "logic" "magisterial teaching" is a lie.

No, because the logic of the Magisterium is different the logic of Sola Scriptura.  The Catholic Church does not rely solely on the Bible for its authority.  Indeed it cannot because the Church precedes the New Testament.  At least some of the New Testament was not written to nearly 70 or 80 years after the death and resurrection of Christ and the works would not be combined into the Bible until more than a century later and indeed it was the Church that sorted out the True Scriptures from the False Scriptures.  In other words, the Church’s spiritual authority preceded the Bible and was based on the Oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. And the new "traditions" brought in by each generation of popes and cardinals are NOT THE SAME TRADITIONS as the first century church, the one Jesus founded.

Believe it or not the basic Tradition of the Church has not changed much in the last 2000 years; not at its core.  If you read Christian writers from the early days of the Church (Iraneus and Origen for example) you will find that concepts such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the immaculate connception were all there.  Sure later generations would flesh out the understanding of these traditions, but the basic Tradition remained the same. Remember, the Church preceded the Bible as we know it today by some 400 years. The Church came first! No, the rcc became the rcc almost 400 years after Jesus’ ascention, and the SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN as early as 59 AD (We have copies of Mark and John solidly dated then, according to reports on National Public Radio last year).

John was not written in 59 AD, probably closer to 100.  And in any case it is irrelevant.  Regardless of whether the whole Bible existed in 59 AD (Which it certainly did not) or whether it was completed in the early 2nd Century and assembled into something resembling the Modern Catholic Form sometime later (since the Protestant Bible with its reduced canon doesn’t exist for another 1000+ years) the basic point is that the Church existed from the time of the Last Supper. The Church precedes the New Testament.  Men were saved because of their faith in Christ and membership in the Church before a single word of the New Testament was penned. BTW, how do you figure the Catholic Church did not exist for 400 years after Jesus ascension?  Certainly the Catholic Church existed at the time of the first Ecumenical Council which happened about 300 years after the Ascension. Just because they weren’t put together in one volumn doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

For much of the time not all the scriptures were available to all the local churches and in addition there were many, many other works that claimed scriptural authority; the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdeline and Peter, the Apocolypse of Peter for example.  It was the Church that seperated the wheat from the chaff. Your church has lied to you and cannot explain how all of us Baptist Christians and other kinds of Christians can be part of the Body of Christ when we are not rcc.

The Church can explain how all true believers in Christ can be saved by Christ and that all believers are in some sense united to the Church.  This is all clearly laid out in Church Teaching.  We do believe that the Catholic Church represents the pure and unadulterated Christianity that Christ and the Apostles established and that through the Sacrements we are strengthed to live a true life of faith. Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any messages… If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…" Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!! And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!! But WHICH traditions?  The traditions taught THEN BY THE APOSTLES, not "new stuff" made up later by each new generation of pope and cardinals to sooth their tickling ears.

Not traditions, Tradition.  Tradition is made up both of Scripture and the oral teachings of the Apostles and of Jesus.  The Popes and the Cardinals do not innovate, they do not and cannot add to Tradition. What they can do is they can help understand certain aspects of Tradition through theology and explinations.  When the Pope speaks infalliby on a matter of Dogma, he is not creating a new belief but rather he is simply making the Church’s understanding of Tradition clear. — Bill

Response:

Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible? Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any messages… If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…" Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!! And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!! Blessings, Leo

Response:

I think you summed it up very well, bam.  You DON’T care whether your practices agree with what God gave in scripture or not! Correct. The Church is infallible. We pronounced the Bible the written word of God. But that didn’t make it superior to the Church. We can change anything we deem necessary. And we do so without shame.

All lies, and one thing for sure it is not fire proof, and will burn in Hell with the rest of the unrully and them that reject the Holy Word of God as found in the Bible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BAM

Response:

where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

It’s not. — Tiger [Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]

Response:

Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

It doesn’t and that is why sola scriptura is a lie.  You can’t pick the Bible up and interpret it the way you want.  You must have Magisterial Teaching, Scripture and Tradition that is what Devine Revelation is.  None of these can exist without the other.  Remember, the Church preceded the Bible as we know it today by some 400 years. The Church came first! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any messages… If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…" Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!! And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!! Blessings, Leo

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not.

Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either. Christian

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either.

Non sequitur.  BTW, how do you know II Timothy 3:16 is inspired?  Still too tough a question? — Tiger [Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]

Response:

you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It doesn’t and that is why sola scriptura is a lie.  

So using your own "logic," the papacy is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), mary as the mother of God is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), mary as redemptrix is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), and mary forever virgin is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either). You can’t just apply your own logic to one point without including the other points like it. You can’t pick the Bible up and interpret it the way you want.  You must have Magisterial Teaching, Scripture and Tradition that is what Devine Revelation is.  None of these can exist without the other.  

Pure nonsense.  The Bible is for: 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;  17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Since SCRiPTURE is for teaching, and all that stuff, the SCRIPTURE must be "up to the task." SHOW ME "magisterial teaching" in the Scripture, or by your own "logic" "magisterial teaching" is a lie. And the new "traditions" brought in by each generation of popes and cardinals are NOT THE SAME TRADITIONS as the first century church, the one Jesus founded. Remember, the Church preceded the Bible as we know it today by some 400 years. The Church came first!

No, the rcc became the rcc almost 400 years after Jesus’ ascention, and the SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN as early as 59 AD (We have copies of Mark and John solidly dated then, according to reports on National Public Radio last year). Just because they weren’t put together in one volumn doesn’t mean they weren’t there. Your church has lied to you and cannot explain how all of us Baptist Christians and other kinds of Christians can be part of the Body of Christ when we are not rcc. Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any messages… If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…" Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!! And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!!

But WHICH traditions?  The traditions taught THEN BY THE APOSTLES, not "new stuff" made up later by each new generation of pope and cardinals to sooth their tickling ears. Christian

Response:

It doesn’t and that is why sola scriptura is a lie. So using your own "logic," the papacy is a lie (it is not mentioned in

You just don’t get it, do you? If someone says "sola scriptura", then that must agree with scripture. But we Catholics do not say "sola scriptura"; we don’t even need the Bible. So we don’t need to prove our validity through scripture. BAM

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible? Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any messages… If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…" Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!! And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!! And it NEVER says ola pope either!  Nor does it say "college of cardinals."  Or infallible pope.  Or mary, mother of God either. And the "tradition in 2 thessalonians 2:15? They were the "traditions" of the FIRST century Christians, not NEW "stuff" brought in by each new generation of leaders, stuff that tickles their individual ears!

Oh you mean the NEW stuff you produce denying the baptism of the Holy Ghost and your forbidding people speaking in tongues??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Christian

Response:

Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

Well that question shows your not sincere and already have a silly debate in your mind, since you will never find a non-english word as such in the English Bible.  If you were in sincerity you would of just called it what it is.  "Only Bible" or "Scripture only" as the proof if something is found in the Bible or not, and if something is true according to the Bible.  All are as you put it "sola scriptura" and so makes that true.  The term you choise is used not for truth, but to bring in the Catholic false teachings and mock the Holy Bible. Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any

messages… Then what have you just done? If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…"

No it does not, why not read the whole scripture and find out what it did say? 2 Tim 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.   NKJV Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!!

Sure it DOES!  Since the name "scripture" means: "Any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group ,The sacred writings of the Christian religion"  What other words would you like to add?   Prov 30:6  Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. NKJV And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!!

Well when you cut everything out, and only leave a very small portion of the verse, one could prove what ever they want, and still not be bible or what was writen in the verse.  So lets look at the whole of this matter, and the verses around that one cut up verse you used to see what they were talking about. 2 Thess 2:13-17 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work. NKJV Jesus said He was the "Way, the Truth and the Life" so belief in the truth of Jesus, which is found only in the Bible.  "Sola scriptura".  You are welcome. You seem to think Paul and such were teaching outside the bible or other words, then since what they did say did become the Bible we have today, it is still only Bible, or "sola scriptura" their teachings are IN the Bible! The traditions they are pointing out were theirs, and in the Bible which we have today.  Still ONLY BIBLE, or your "sola scriptura".  Our comfort comes from what was writen, and being written at that time in the New Testament, not the traditions of man but the Word of God and Gods traditions, found ONLY IN THE BIBLE. It would seem you are trying to make your traditions, those of Paul and the Bible, then only in the bible is the traditions of God, and ONLY BIBLE is the place we find which are of God and the Apostles as they were then making the New Testament in their life time. 1 Cor 11:2-3  Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. Again we find Paul is limiting the teachings only to the Bible and what He was teaching and HIS traditions which He delivered to them, not others centuries later, and traditions that lead to false teachings and are not from the Bible only, which would make them surely correct. Matt 15:3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? In that verse we find the kind of traditions that were not Bible only so ended up as false and transgress the commandments of God.  Those that trust in tradition not found in the "sola scriptura" the Bible only, end up in sin and false teachings. as the next shows what happens with people ADD to the Bible and Add to the traditions found in the Bible, it is called "your tradition" and is seen as Hypocritical. Matt 15:6-9  6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Col 2:8-10 8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. NKJV So if you are honest you would make sure all your teachings were just that "sola scriptura" Bible only, as others lead to destrustion, lies and evil. The truth is found only in Jesus as all the fullness of God is in Him, not the outside of the Christ of the Bible.  We are complete in HIM. He Jesus not a pope, not peter, not someone else is the HEAD of ALL principality and power.  The truth is found ONLY IN THE BIBLE as that is what the bible is teachings.  Then be nice to use English if your going to post in English. Latin if you use Latin.  Thank you. Same verses in the Latin Vulate Bible.  Would you like to use it to prove your point?  I think if you read it in Latin, It still agrees with the Bible ONLY "sola scripura" 8  videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam secundum traditionem hominum secundum elementa mundi et non secundum Christum 9  quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter 10  et estis in illo repleti qui est caput omnis principatus et potestatis I so enjoyed post to you. Then 2 Timothy 3 did say it so well in this verse. 16  omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia 17  ut perfectus sit homo Dei ad omne opus bonum instructus Blessings,

Thank you, and my the blessings of God teach you His ways. Raymond – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Leo

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either.

Irrelevant. A) We aren’t talking about an of those three things and B) Catholics have never pretended to explain our beliefs via Sola Scriptura.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic : Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It doesn’t and that is why sola scriptura is a lie.   So using your own "logic," the papacy is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), mary as the mother of God is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), mary as redemptrix is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either), and mary forever virgin is a lie (it is not mentioned in the Bible either).

Your point is nonsensical because it isn’t by "our logic."  We’ve never said that our doctrines have to hold up to the scrutiny of "Sola Scriptura."   You also completely miss the point, which is that Sola Scriptura is nonsense because it fails its own test!

Response:

And it NEVER says ola pope either!  Nor does it say "college of cardinals."  Or infallible pope.  Or mary, mother of God either.

You accept their trinity, why do you balk at their other inventions?   You are attacking your mother church and your spiritual brethern. Pastor Winter — Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio) Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?

Response:

Raymond – the Church was 400 years old before we put out the Bible. We don’t need the Bible. You do, because it serves you like a ventriloquist’s dummy. You can make it say anything you want. Then you blame the dummy as if the message came from him instead of you. BAM

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, For those of you who would like to seriously and seeking the truth in sincerity debate,I would like to ask, where is sola scriptura in the Bible? Well that question shows your not sincere and already have a silly debate in your mind, since you will never find a non-english word as such in the English Bible.  If you were in sincerity you would of just called it what it is.  "Only Bible" or "Scripture only" as the proof if something is found in the Bible or not, and if something is true according to the Bible.  All are as you put it "sola scriptura" and so makes that true.  The term you choise is used not for truth, but to bring in the Catholic false teachings and mock the Holy Bible. Please, if all you want to do is throw garbage at others,dont put in any messages… Then what have you just done? If you say its 2 Tim 3:16, it says "All scripture is inspired by God…" No it does not, why not read the whole scripture and find out what it did say? 2 Tim 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.   NKJV Doesnt say "ONLY scripture is inspired by God.."!!! Sure it DOES!  Since the name "scripture" means: "Any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group ,The sacred writings of the Christian religion"  What other words would you like to add?   Prov 30:6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. NKJV And what about 2 Thes 2:15 where Paul urges the Thessolonians to stand firm in tradition??!!! Well when you cut everything out, and only leave a very small portion of the verse, one could prove what ever they want, and still not be bible or what was writen in the verse.  So lets look at the whole of this matter, and the verses around that one cut up verse you used to see what they were talking about. 2 Thess 2:13-17 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work. NKJV Jesus said He was the "Way, the Truth and the Life" so belief in the truth of Jesus, which is found only in the Bible.  "Sola scriptura".  You are welcome. You seem to think Paul and such were teaching outside the bible or other words, then since what they did say did become the Bible we have today, it is still only Bible, or "sola scriptura" their teachings are IN the Bible! The traditions they are pointing out were theirs, and in the Bible which we have today.  Still ONLY BIBLE, or your "sola scriptura".  Our comfort comes from what was writen, and being written at that time in the New Testament, not the traditions of man but the Word of God and Gods traditions, found ONLY IN THE BIBLE. It would seem you are trying to make your traditions, those of Paul and the Bible, then only in the bible is the traditions of God, and ONLY BIBLE is the place we find which are of God and the Apostles as they were then making the New Testament in their life time. 1 Cor 11:2-3  Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. Again we find Paul is limiting the teachings only to the Bible and what He was teaching and HIS traditions which He delivered to them, not others centuries later, and traditions that lead to false teachings and are not from the Bible only, which would make them surely correct. Matt 15:3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? In that verse we find the kind of traditions that were not Bible only so ended up as false and transgress the commandments of God.  Those that trust in tradition not found in the "sola scriptura" the Bible only, end up in sin and false teachings. as the next shows what happens with people ADD to the Bible and Add to the traditions found in the Bible, it is called "your tradition" and is seen as Hypocritical. Matt 15:6-9  6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Col 2:8-10 8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. NKJV So if you are honest you would make sure all your teachings were just that "sola scriptura" Bible only, as others lead to destrustion, lies and evil. The truth is found only in Jesus as all the fullness of God is in Him, not the outside of the Christ of the Bible.  We are complete in HIM. He Jesus not a pope, not peter, not someone else is the HEAD of ALL principality and power.  The truth is found ONLY IN THE BIBLE as that is what the bible is teachings.  Then be nice to use English if your going to post in English. Latin if you use Latin.  Thank you. Same verses in the Latin Vulate Bible.  Would you like to use it to prove your point?  I think if you read it in Latin, It still agrees with the Bible ONLY "sola scripura" 8  videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam secundum traditionem hominum secundum elementa mundi et non secundum Christum 9  quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter 10  et estis in illo repleti qui est caput omnis principatus et potestatis I so enjoyed post to you. Then 2 Timothy 3 did say it so well in this verse. 16  omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia 17  ut perfectus sit homo Dei ad omne opus bonum instructus Blessings, Thank you, and my the blessings of God teach you His ways. Raymond Leo

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal : where is sola scriptura in the Bible? It’s not. Of course, neither is papacy, mary mother of God,  mary forever virgin either. Non sequitur.  BTW, how do you know II Timothy 3:16 is inspired?  Still too tough a question?

Could it be because it was also in tongues?  16  omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia 17  ut perfectus sit homo Dei ad omne opus bonum instructus – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Tiger [Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]

Response:

Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura. We don’t need Biblical permission. So true, Hell is open for everyone that doesn’t accept the Bible and its really hot on that trip.

Your a bad soldier in Christ’s army, Raymond. BAM

Response:

You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each  other or the Church. BAM

The whole new testament is one big argument about what the disciples thought the old testament meant.  The church was as split then as now. What the majority decides is what the church thinks is the truth. What the real truth is can be something else. J

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each  other or the Church. BAM The whole new testament is one big argument about what the disciples thought the old testament meant.  The church was as split then as now. What the majority decides is what the church thinks is the truth. What the real truth is can be something else. J

How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God? Joe

Response:

You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each  other or the Church. BAM The whole new testament is one big argument about what the disciples thought the old testament meant.

Ridiculous. The church was as split then as now. What the majority decides is what the church thinks is the truth. What the real truth is can be something else.

Negative on both counts. The teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be free from error, and we don’t need a majority; we only need one. BAM

Response:

How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?

     It isn’t, its the work of men.   J

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?      It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? You’re the failure. There are no others. BAM How can I fail at something I am not obligated to do?

You have failed to recognize the truth. BAM

Response:

Negative on both counts. The teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be free from error, and we don’t need a majority; we only need one.

Better check that guarantee, you might be getting screwed. J

Response:

Negative on both counts. The teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be free from error, and we don’t need a majority; we only need one. Better check that guarantee, you might be getting screwed.

Worry about yourself, thank you. BAM

Response:

How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?      It isn’t, its the work of men.

How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? Joe

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?      It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan?

You’re the failure. There are no others. BAM

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?      It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan?

None – the Holy Spirit has more power than incompitent men.  Peter was a primary example.  So was the choice of the Apostles.  At least one Apostle was a murderer. God bless, Stephen — — Stephen Korsman www.theotokos.co.za www.theotokos.co.za/adventism IC | XC NI | KA

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?      It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? You’re the failure. There are no others. BAM

How can I fail at something I am not obligated to do? Joe

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How true, how can such a sloppy legacy be the work of a God?      It isn’t, its the work of men. How can a god entrust the most important task of delivering the truth to such incompetant men then? What responsibility does god have in the failure of the plan? None – the Holy Spirit has more power than incompitent men.  Peter was a primary example.  So was the choice of the Apostles.  At least one Apostle was a murderer. God bless, Stephen

Interesting Joe

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And Paul.  The writings we preserved included Paul’s letters. You make it sound like the early Church was the image of modern Protestantism, with little sects all over the place.  But Paul himself makes it very clear that personal factions are not the Lord’s will.  We are called to be one body, one church. The church of Paul WAS the church of Peter and Andrew and John and Barnabas and Luke and Mark and Timothy and Titus and …. Yes, but it seems to me that Paul and the others didn’t agree among themselves what exactly was the gospel.  Paul jumped on Peter for his hypocrisy and Peter said some of Pauls writings were hard to be understood etc.  So there was division among them and I don’t know that they ever agreed.  The church that emerged  was catholic in its beliefs but I am not convinced that it was right in  its doctrines.  And it seems like the catholic church today has the same problems in that its members don’t agree on the doctrines.  But protestant churches don’t agree either on doctrines so the division continues.  Unity based on doctrines seems to be doomed to fail.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. A few snippets of scripture hardly define Peter and Paul’s relationship to each  other or the Church. BAM

Response:

What’s amazing to me is that the catholics trace everything back to the disciples of Christ, Peter, James, John etc. but nobody questions whether these fishermen knew what they were talking about.

And Paul.  The writings we preserved included Paul’s letters.   You make it sound like the early Church was the image of modern Protestantism, with little sects all over the place.  But Paul himself makes it very clear that personal factions are not the Lord’s will.  We are called to be one body, one church. The church of Paul WAS the church of Peter and Andrew and John and Barnabas and Luke and Mark and Timothy and Titus and ….

Response:

And Paul.  The writings we preserved included Paul’s letters.   You make it sound like the early Church was the image of modern Protestantism, with little sects all over the place.  But Paul himself makes it very clear that personal factions are not the Lord’s will.  We are called to be one body, one church. The church of Paul WAS the church of Peter and Andrew and John and Barnabas and Luke and Mark and Timothy and Titus and ….

Yes, but it seems to me that Paul and the others didn’t agree among themselves what exactly was the gospel.  Paul jumped on Peter for his hypocrisy and Peter said some of Pauls writings were hard to be understood etc.  So there was division among them and I don’t know that they ever agreed.  The church that emerged  was catholic in its beliefs but I am not convinced that it was right in  its doctrines.  And it seems like the catholic church today has the same problems in that its members don’t agree on the doctrines.  But protestant churches don’t agree either on doctrines so the division continues.  Unity based on doctrines seems to be doomed to fail.   John

Response:

D. Ehrman.  He covers the bases on the competing claims of orthodoxy during the first half millenium.  Interesting read.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm Jason Engwer http://members.aol.com/jasonte New Testament Research Ministries http://www.ntrmin.org

Response:

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago,

     What’s amazing to me is that the catholics trace everything back to the disciples of Christ, Peter, James, John etc. but nobody questions whether these fishermen knew what they were talking about.    They assume because they were with Christ they knew it all. Obviously they didn’t or otherwise Christ wouldn’t have had to call Paul, who was an ex-Pharissee who knew the law, to teach what Peter and the rest didn’t know. Paul’s faith alone versus James faith and works doctrines. There were two different gospels being preached and I think Paul’s was the right one, not the disciples. John

Response:

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Yes. Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? Yes. BAM

I’m starting to wonder, what with the higher than usual number of anti-Catholic diatribese being posted to ARCRC, if these assorted trolls are having a convention this month.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Yes. Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? Yes. BAM I’m starting to wonder, what with the higher than usual number of anti-Catholic diatribese being posted to ARCRC, if these assorted trolls are having a convention this month.

My guess is, no. As a general rule they are not visibly united. They are only united by evil hearts and this they won’t admit. BAM

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: Probably snippets taken out of context, like a true Protestant. Take it elsewhere "Rev’rend"

Having read the previous ones, yes, they are. God bless, Stephen — — Stephen Korsman www.theotokos.co.za www.theotokos.co.za/adventism IC | XC NI | KA

Response:

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm Jason Engwer http://members.aol.com/jasonte New Testament Research Ministries http://www.ntrmin.org

You have brought some interesting points, Jason. Which christian church do you follow? It seems that you could be Eastern Orthodox.    I will try to give you my personal view on this; although I am not a theologian. We first need to understand that, even today, some catholic literature can have serious errors within, so we cannot read the church fathers in the same manner we read the scriptures. "Any" information, whether it be an attack on the roman bishop or a support to the Petrine teaching, is important in order for us to have a picture of the early church. We know right from the start that there were many christian sects,some of which, influenced great apologetics of the catholic church to actually write against the church they once followed and loved.    I will start off with only a couple of quotations as this would be much too long to deal with everything at once. "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." – The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)     Here, I’m not certain as to the context of what is being said. What I do know is that Cyprian did leave the catholic church only to be reconciled back into it prior to his death. What could be important here, in my opinion, is the statement against the position of bishop of bishops. But this mearly supports the position of "archbishop" and not "bishop of the catholic church" as such.In other words, could this simply have meant that there was no need for a superior position above that of the bishop, "as long as the bishop was in unity with the teachings which came from Rome?" For Cyprian clearly speaks of Rome as being the See of Peter, where the unity of the church was to be found. "But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" – Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)   So, here, Augustine simply states that writings of christian bishops and apologetics are liable to having errors within, and are not to be read as the scriptures are read, or accepted as truth as the scriptures are accepted as truth. This is a Roman Catholic teaching.     Notice afterwards, when something is in doubt of being erronious, a certain proceeding, clearly showing a  hiarchical structured church, is mentioned by Augustine.    First, the error can simply be faced by a wise person, if not, then by a higher authority such as a bishop. If there is still doubt as to whether the new teaching(or a new explanation of a certain teaching) is to be accepted as being either worthy of belief or heretical, then a regional council of bishops can be held, but notice "very importantly that a desision from the"catholic council", or "plenary council"as mentioned by Augustine "overides" the decision of "any regional councils".   This is truly a Catholic Church teaching and maybe part of the problem as to why sometimes there seems to be some regional conflics between church teachings. ….I will continue along the same issue. Here’s Irenaeus explaining the non-papal reasons for the Roman church’s importance: "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority — that is, the faithful everywhere — inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate….But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time — a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics….There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)     Here, Irenaeus,as well as others, such as Tertullian (while still a catholic), write of the importance of the "Apostolic succession of bishops". No, it didn’t matter from which apostle, but the the succession of the Apostle Peter,such as the Roman Church, many confirming as being from whom the church has been built upon, is seen as being special, not due to it being luckily situated where every roads meet, but because it was the See of Peter from where the unity of the Church would be found. Cyprian clearly speaks of it. "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority — that is, the faithful everywhere —    Every Church needs to agree with this Church, not because it happens to be the only church who has "luckily" received the apostolic tradition, but because of it’s pre emiment authority, it is the church which "judges" as to whether the teaching is to be accepted as apostolic or not and preserves it.Remember what Augustine wrote, "…and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" – Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)" "… inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere"    Which Apostolic tradition? He continues… The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate….to him succeded Anacletus,and afterwards, Clement…."In this order and succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles,and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us." Andre

Response:

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic?

Yes. Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches?

Yes. BAM

Response:

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at:

Probably snippets taken out of context, like a true Protestant. Take it elsewhere "Rev’rend" -Tony — For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/ "Rome has spoken, the debate is ended." — St. Augustine

Response:

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site (http://www.ntrmin.org ) documenting hundreds of examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at: http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm Jason Engwer http://members.aol.com/jasonte New Testament Research Ministries http://www.ntrmin.org

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes  john w responded If you examine the MOST BASIC tenets of each of the above religions, Catholics are NOT Christians, nor are Mormons. Of those who ARE basically "Christian" by New Testament standards, the Baptists, the "Protestants", the 7th Day Evangelists and the 7th Day Adventists, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Greek Orthodox, and the Coptics, would agree on all the essentials. I have a question…. why are "Mormons" not a christian religion? As an impartial Athiest observer I must say no. Here is what I base this on. The first revelation is the old testament. This is used by Jews. The revelation of Christ is the new testament, this is used by Catholics. It is also used by Protastants, who are different then Catholics but don’t use any new revelation, just a new interpatation. Next we have Muslims. They have a new revelation in the Koran, which supersedes the Bible/Old Testament. …

]]> http://faqcatholic.com/roman-catholic-baptism/to-defend-catholicism-attack-heretics-sda.html/feed 0