Adventures in Catholic debates

[Phillystang]

James White and Father Stravinskas


Pay me now, pay me later
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXeb-x63wGI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXeb-x63wGI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Who is the blessed man?
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HhODLhskR-g&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HhODLhskR-g&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

On Purgatory
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/27ANt7L12qI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/27ANt7L12qI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Brain_Mach1]

Anyone interested in YouTube debate should check the series of debates between Martin and Pacwa posted by SKYPLASH. Do a search, there are a lot of them.

They are not editted and they include the names of the people in the debates.

There is a Father Peter Stravinskas who wrote many Catholic books, but I have not been able to determine who the guy in the above is. The YouTube descirptions don't say and I can't find anything from Jim White's website either.

[Phillystang]

Here is a Pacwa/ James White debate

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GRpNTy0flgM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GRpNTy0flgM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Phillystang]

Papacy Rebuttal White/Pacwa

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XQ6bLYVD8qM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XQ6bLYVD8qM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Brain_Mach1]

Here is a Pacwa/ James White debate

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GRpNTy0flgM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GRpNTy0flgM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Wow, I learned about more Apostolic Churches from Father Mitch! Strange how the older the Church (even those not in union with Rome) the less they look like non-denominational Churches of America.

[Phillystang]

Boston College Papacy Debate Reposted

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dlQZXjjWZZs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dlQZXjjWZZs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Brain_Mach1]

So I am guessing you are Greek Orthodox? I have no problem with the Orthodox Churches.

They believe the Patriarchs are equal.

Amen, amen .....

Truly, truly .....

Believe what is written.

[Brain_Mach1]

Philly,

Have you ever thought about posting any NON editted "debates"

I would hate to think that people might get the idea that you have some anti-Catholic prejudice. :D

[Phillystang]

Philly,

Have you ever thought about posting any NON editted "debates"

I would hate to think that people might get the idea that you have some anti-Catholic prejudice. :D
Although this is not the entire debate, it is not edited. It is merely Whites closing statements.

Catholics often point to protestants lack of knowledge about the early church fathers (which is true, there is a lack), but when there is a well studied protestant such as White who knows his church fathers, then the Catholics I've seen him debate with don't have much to come back with.

[Phillystang]

So I am guessing you are Greek Orthodox? I have no problem with the Orthodox Churches.

They believe the Patriarchs are equal.

Amen, amen .....

Truly, truly .....

Believe what is written.
No, I'm not Greek Orthodox, what made you think that?

You have no problem with the Greek Orthodox, last I heard they didn't recognize the catholic Pope's authority?

[Brain_Mach1]

No, I'm not Greek Orthodox, what made you think that?

You have no problem with the Greek Orthodox, last I heard they didn't recognize the catholic Pope's authority?
They believe Jesus when He said "Amen, Amen" :D

James White comments that the Patriarchs did not view the Bishop of Rome as supreme. This would imply that there ARE Pathriachs (someone actually making the statement). These patriarch are the leaders of the Orthodox Churches. The Protestants are suspiciously quiet in the 1st 15 Centuries. :eek:

If James White is correct, I should leave the Catholic Church and become Orthodox. Will you be joining me? :D

Resolve the papal debate and you have Orthodoxy. This is Church history.

As for your post, it is this simple. Paul says "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. "

I can point to a 2000 year old pillar, the Church, and so can the Orthodox. You have no pillar or truth, at least not one that you have ever mentioned. You claim no denomination, so you can't be held to anything specific. You have various people you follow as long as they agree with you. If they don't, you attack them ie Haggie's new book.

You are making yourself your own pope and patriarch.

The Bible is not the Pillar of truth, the Church is the pillar of truth. The Church is 2000 years old.

[Brain_Mach1]

It is merely Whites closing statements.
Feel free to change the title of the thread to reflect you statement.
Catholics often point to protestants lack of knowledge about the early church fathers (which is true, there is a lack), but when there is a well studied protestant such as White who knows his church fathers, then the Catholics I've seen him debate with don't have much to come back with.
I don't doubt that James White is a good debater. I have not seen a complete debate from him.

However, I am aware of writings from Protestant preachers who converted to Catholicism. Dr. Scott Hahn, a former seminar professor who is now a Catholic professor, points out that he actively lead Catholics away from Catholicism to Protestantism. He now teaches Bible study to Catholics and has lead many preachers to Catholicism. You can view his material at:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/

Marcus Grodi, former Protestant preacher, created a network of converts to help other Protestant ministers who are looking to return to the Catholic Church.

http://www.chnetwork.org/

How about Cardinal Newman who converted to Catholicism while studying history to disprove Catholicism and wrote “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.”

I have not called on the Protestants on the board to watch these men and believe them as you have done with your anti-catholic posts (I am recalling your video from John whoever who has never even been in a Catholic Church).

[Phillystang]

Feel free to change the title of the thread to reflect you statement.

I don't doubt that James White is a good debater. I have not seen a complete debate from him.

However, I am aware of writings from Protestant preachers who converted to Catholicism. Dr. Scott Hahn, a former seminar professor who is now a Catholic professor, points out that he actively lead Catholics away from Catholicism to Protestantism. He now teaches Bible study to Catholics and has lead many preachers to Catholicism. You can view his material at:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/

Marcus Grodi, former Protestant preacher, created a network of converts to help other Protestant ministers who are looking to return to the Catholic Church.

http://www.chnetwork.org/

How about Cardinal Newman who converted to Catholicism while studying history to disprove Catholicism and wrote “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.”

I have not called on the Protestants on the board to watch these men and believe them as you have done with your anti-catholic posts (I am recalling your video from John whoever who has never even been in a Catholic Church).
Well, you are free to post whichever material you want to, (preferably in a new thread.) I am not trying to attack Catholicism just for the sake of it, but for the sake of those that have been caught up into its trappings. I care for those souls that are trusting in their works and own goodness and man-made doctrines of Rome rather than in the finished work of Christ imputed to their account.

Just re-watch the first video clip in this thread 'pay now or pay later' and you'll see how much Rome's system has been corrupted.

There are plenty of ex-catholics I could post up also that are now protestants.

[Phillystang]

Sola Scriptura debate closing statement

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D4Sl5uGQSIk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D4Sl5uGQSIk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Brain_Mach1]

Well, you are free to post whichever material you want to, (preferably in a new thread.) I am not trying to attack Catholicism just for the sake of it, but for the sake of those that have been caught up into its trappings. I care for those souls that are trusting in their works and own goodness and man-made doctrines of Rome rather than in the finished work of Christ imputed to their account. I have quoted the Catechism to you in the past showing that your understanding of Catholicism is incorrect. One of the REAL debates I linked to with Father Paqwa even covers this. The person he is debating also falls into the trap of stating the Protestant "view" of Catholicism instead of what is actually written and the moderator calls him out for it. Don’t argue that Catholics believe what you want them to believe. Argue against what is written.

Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi both discouss how their understanding of Catholics was different from what was actually written in Catholic doctrine. I am sure that you have the same respect for me by reviewing material I post just as I do when you post material.

Fallen away Catholics who do not understand are in error. People who know the truth but teach otherwise are heretics. Those who argue from their understanding of Catholicism instead of arguing against what is written in Catholic doctrine are bigots.

You choose to believe what you have heard and not what has been presented to you from official Church documents. You have even commented about the Catholic Church on threads about the Archbishop of Canterbury and threads about predestination.

To correct your error in Catholic understanding again: "Can man merit anything on their own in the Catholic belief?" No. :eek:

2007. With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

Where you are confused from incorrect teaching is from 2008

"The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

Imagine a hungry family.
1. They ask for assistance from your church (call this prayer, “alter call”, sinner’s prayer, etc.).
2. You come to their house and fill their pantry and refrigerator with food (God’s grace poured out).
3. If they do not actively accept the food by eating it, they will die (man collaborating with God’s grace).
4. Your Church fills the house with food every week, but at any point that the family stops eating what is being provided, they will die (this is where the once saved always saved debate does not apply to Catholic teaching).

Anyone “trusting in their goodness” is in error with the Church according to Church doctrine. This would be as if the hungry family had a dinner party and spoke of the great food they had provided the guests when it was actually provided by your Church.

[FSON]

Is there Anything in the Bible that mentions the Catholic Church, a pope, priests, nuns, that anyone who is a Christian should not marry because they are a leader in a Christian organization...? And who the fire came up with this ludicrous "Earthly" structure?

[Brain_Mach1]

Is there Anything in the Bible that mentions the Catholic Church, a pope, priests, nuns, that anyone who is a Christian should not marry because they are a leader in a Christian organization...? And who the fire came up with this ludicrous "Earthly" structure?
Why Yes! I am so glad you asked! :D

Revelation 14:4 They were singing (what seemed to be) a new hymn before the throne, before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women; they are virgins and these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes.

Nuns and priests are married to the Church as Jesus is married to the Church. They can only have one spouse. The Orthodox allow for married priests but not married Bishops. We hear of Peter’s mother-in-law in the Gospels but never his wife. I find that interesting. We hear of the mother and father of James and John but never their wives? Jesus and the apostles were 13 Jewish men and no mention of their wives but we hear about their mothers and other women? :eek:

Pope was the ancient Greek title for bishops meaning papa, as in Spiritual fathers like Paul and Peter. As Paul says in 1Cor 4:15 “Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.”

Both Peter and Paul refer to their “children” in their letters. Peter and Paul were Bishops and we are their spiritual children. I guess they had not heard that we have but one father in heaven (they didn't have a Bible). :eek:

Catholic means universal. Jesus created only one Church. "...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15. Did Paul just say that the church is the pillar of truth? I thought that was the Bible alone? You know Sola Scriptura?

The oldest written record of the word Catholic used with the Church is “Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church”
-Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

[FSON]

Why Yes! I am so glad you asked! :D


The oldest written record of the word Catholic used with the Church is “Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church”
-Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 1st c. A.D
Still don't mean diddly, unless you can back it up in the Bible. Otherwise, it is an earthly construct of no relevance to Christianity and in league with the opposition.
I don't care what Ignat said, he made up his own religion. What it is, it is not mentioned in the Bible... if you want to hold the Bible as the standard. If not the standard, let's get on with it.

[Brain_Mach1]

Still don't mean diddly, unless you can back it up in the Bible. Otherwise, it is an earthly construct of no relevance to Christianity and in league with the opposition.
I don't care what Ignat said, he made up his own religion. What it is, it is not mentioned in the Bible... if you want to hold the Bible as the standard. If not the standard, let's get on with it.You are aware that the Books of the Bible were not complete until around 70 AD?

You are also aware that Paul said "So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

Paul never had a Bible, so I guess he had to improvise. That must be why he refered to himself as our father.

Jesus created a Church not a book. He never said "write this down". These are features of Islam and Jewish religions. Christ created a Church.

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)

or, point solely to a book which Catholics had not compiled yet. -- Martin Luther

[Brain_Mach1]

Since a debate has 2 sides and we love James White, search YouTube for:

Justification By Faith - Sungenis vs White

It covers 25 parts because it is not editted to contain James White content only.

[FSON]

That's the problem. The Bible we (Catholics and Protestants) have today was culled and edited by a group of self appointed men who made the Catholic Church as something "Strange".
The rats have entered and defecated in the stored grain, who will eat of it now.

[Brain_Mach1]

That's the problem. The Bible we (Catholics and Protestants) have today was culled and edited by a group of self appointed men who made the Catholic Church as something "Strange". Self appointed would apply more to a non-denominational church and to other Protestant churches than to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

The fact is that a man CAN NOT go to college, get a degree and start a church in the Catholic or Orthodox faiths. This is a possibility and a reality in Protestantism. Catholics have Parishes, Protestants have what ever corner they choose to build their building on. This leads to multiple and competing churches on the same block, both with the truth.

In Murphy, where I used to live, there are 3 Baptist churches within one mile of each other. What makes one church contain more truth than the other? There is only one Christ and one Church, yet 3 different but the same places on the same street?

If “self appointment” is an issue, Apostolic Succession should be important to you. If it is, the Catholic and Orthodox faiths are your home.

If the Apostolic Churches seem “strange”, than go to a Jewish Shabbat service and study Jewish liturgy. You will begin to see the parallels.

[FSON]

Self appointed would apply more to a non-denominational church and to other Protestant churches than to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

The fact is that a man CAN NOT go to college, get a degree and start a church in the Catholic or Orthodox faiths. This is a possibility and a reality in Protestantism. Catholics have Parishes, Protestants have what ever corner they choose to build their building on. This leads to multiple and competing churches on the same block, both with the truth.

In Murphy, where I used to live, there are 3 Baptist churches within one mile of each other. What makes one church contain more truth than the other? There is only one Christ and one Church, yet 3 different but the same places on the same street?

If “self appointment” is an issue, Apostolic Succession should be important to you. If it is, the Catholic and Orthodox faiths are your home.

If the Apostolic Churches seem “strange”, than go to a Jewish Shabbat service and study Jewish liturgy. You will begin to see the parallels.

Those Parallels are meaningless in this case. Should we study the originations of the Jewish traditions and the origins of those traditions and the origins of those traditions...?

Self appointment as in those who placed themselves in the position to cull and edit books that would become the Bible. And then make a religion aside from the teachings of a man they appropriated.

Who wants to make bread from grain tainted with rat defecation? The grain makes bread but the serving is not good for your health.

[Brain_Mach1]

Those Parallels are meaningless in this case. Should we study the originations of the Jewish traditions and the origins of those traditions and the origins of those traditions...?
Yes we Should!

Paul says in 2 Tim 3:16 says “All Scripture is inspired by God”. Since the New Testament had not been completed, he was talking about the old Testament.

As St Augustine said “the New is concealed in the Old Testament, the Old is revealed in the New.” We should be reading the Old Testament and the Jewish traditions to understand God’s plan for salvation. God told Moses how the people should worship. David reinstituted the Jewish liturgy as a Priest and King. Jesus is the high Priest and King from the line of David. Yes all this should be studied!Self appointment as in those who placed themselves in the position to cull and edit books that would become the Bible. And then make a religion aside from the teachings of a man they appropriated. To Cull is to remove what is not wanted. I am not aware of anything being Culled from the Bible other than when Martin Luther attempted it and when several books were removed from the Old Testament.

Are you implying that the Catholic Church removed books or passages? You did not state this specifically.Who wants to make bread from grain tainted with rat defecation? The grain makes bread but the serving is not good for your health. I agree. This is why it is important to study Judaism and the early Church to make sure we are not contaminating the grain. We need to know what the good grain looked like!

[Phillystang]

Along the lines of another post, if a load of native language Bibles were to be dropped on an island full of lost men, would God's Word alone be efficient for faith and salvation apart from the Catholic church system?

Do you think the island men would conclude from the Bible alone that they should pray to Mary and that she was sinless? Could they conclude that there was a guy in charge somewhere who was Vicar of Christ whose declarations regarding the faith were infallible? Would they have lent, the rosary, and confessions to priests?

[Casper]

Along the lines of another post, if a load of native language Bibles were to be dropped on an island full of lost men, would God's Word alone be efficient for faith and salvation apart from the Catholic church system?

Do you think the island men would conclude from the Bible alone that they should pray to Mary and that she was sinless? Could they conclude that there was a guy in charge somewhere who was Vicar of Christ whose declarations regarding the faith were infallible? Would they have lent, the rosary, and confessions to priests?

Good question, specifically about the virgin.

In the context of today, it seems almost anachronistic, but to a pagan gentile raised in the practice of worshipping goddesses, Mary became the ultimate anti-goddess. The utility of that persona is very deep. No longer were there anthropomorphic gods and goddesses, but now there was a neo-anthropomorphic intermediary, of male gender (Jesus). To separate Jesus from his human likenesses (us), a new role for the female divine had to be proposed. She couldn't be a physical equal, like a wife, because jesus was incorporeal originally. By creating a story of virgin birth, Jsus became flesh, and a Davidic lineage was possible (ala Paul).

As far as a "Vicar of Christ", if you accept a fully Jewish origin of Christianity then there is no reason to limit forgiveness of sins to Christ, because Rabbis were capable of doing just that. Confession falls right in line with this same idea.

[FSON]

Yes we Should.
To Cull is to remove what is not wanted.
You are right. In the third chapter, 2 verse of Jeobanite, it says that the christ will come to the people and die for their sins. He then returned and appointed a Pope who now lives in the city of the land of christ's oppressors. A host of virgin minions surround the pope and interpret the Bible and speak to G#d for the common people. The common people cannot speak directly to G#D because they do not wear the special transmittors that are supplied by the Pope to his minions. These standards are all sent to the flock (the Standardizers) by the grace of G#d. The mother of the christ will be prayed to because she is the mother of G#d. Of course she is not dead and waiting the christs second return because she is so special she went straight to heaven and did not have to pass GO or pay any rent money while she was at the ski resort Pergatorum. This the christ demanded because it completes the olden test a minionals as was prophecied by the hidden message in the raining of frogs lo those many years ago.
Alas, the in is out and the out is in, may the non compliant be culled and standardized.

[Casper]

There was a lot of crap written in the 4th century. I don't think the issue is that the churches culled specific peices, but how they chose which to cull.

And it was not a go or no-go decision. Some things were discarded outright (gThomas). Some things were kept but deemed only silliness, with some theological significance for posterity (apocrypha). Some were accecpted suplement that fell out of favor (Hermas). Some were included later (Peter). Some were rewrites that started off with acceptance but eventually were deemed unnecessary (Diatessaron). Some were only accepted by certain sects (Revelation). And that is just the New Testament; the Old Testament itself was rewritten and exists in more than one form between Jews and Christians.

[FSON]

There was a lot of crap written in the 4th century. I don't think the issue is that the churches culled specific peices, but how they chose which to cull.



Who were the people who culled the books, who gave them the authority and who gave them authority..., who was culled and why to achieve this authority. Is there an obvious intention, maybe power? What would it mean if some books were culled for personal or factional dominance outside the spirit?

[ModdinArt]

wow
I was raised Church of Christ. While they said if I did not anty up once a week, I'd burn, I have never heard it put so bluntly as pay now or pay later.
There is alot of money in salvation/fear. As a video editor for TBN, I saw many a person hand over every dollar they had to buy their way into heaven. It was sickening and it was sad. This is the exact same thing... extorting weak minds for their money. This imbitches God as they play pimp. man, I hope they dont really believe what they preach or its gonna be hell.

uhm, no pun intended.

[Casper]

Who were the people who culled the books, who gave them the authority and who gave them authority..., who was culled and why to achieve this authority. Is there an obvious intention, maybe power? What would it mean if some books were culled for personal or factional dominance outside the spirit?

I think you know my opinion, but if you want to start with the party line then the catholic Encyclopedia is a good place to start. It isn't all propaganda and conspiracy, just a set POV.

[FSON]

I think you know my opinion, but if you want to start with the party line then the catholic Encyclopedia is a good place to start. It isn't all propaganda and conspiracy, just a set POV.
Of course I used your quote, but the static status of self appointed standardization still shrouds the land in a dark, putrid, state of affairs. As a forum, this is open for anyone to discuss, hopefully to unshroud and reveal (and in most cases it is a re-reveal). Documentation is in international engineering units of course.

[Brain_Mach1]

Along the lines of another post, if a load of native language Bibles were to be dropped on an island full of lost men, would God's Word alone be efficient for faith and salvation apart from the Catholic church system?Seeing as how you have already diverged from the Bible at this point, I know you are grasping at straws.

Matthew ends with:
The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Mark say:
He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The disciples are charged with actively proclaiming to the world, not dropping a book from an airplane. Have you seen the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy”? It is a great example of what a Coca Cola bottle can do to people who have not been taught about bottles.Do you think the island men would conclude from the Bible alone that they should pray to Mary and that she was sinless? Could they conclude that there was a guy in charge somewhere who was Vicar of Christ whose declarations regarding the faith were infallible? Would they have lent, the rosary, and confessions to priests? Knowing the status that the Mother of the King had in Jewish Monarchy (as presented in 2Samuel and in 1,2Chronicles) they would see the honor given to John to care for her as a great blessing. They might also find it interesting that Mary is the only one whom Jesus performed a miracle just because she asked. He would do no such thing for the Pharisees. They might even conclude that she is the Ark of the New Covenant as seen in Revelation.

But with arguments like this, you are jumping to the fullness of the faith bypassing the basics.

The Islanders would start with the Old Testament and see that the Jews had a liturgical form or worship. Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus give instruction for worship and the Law. They would see that there are leaders of the people.

When Jesus came, he chose 12 apostles as Moses chose 12 princes of the tribes. Jesus commissioned 70 additional disciples as Moses commissioned 70 other leaders of the tribes.

In Acts 1, the Apostles chose Matthias by lots to replace Judas. The see that there are 2 councils of these leaders and that Paul is added to the group. If the islanders believe the Bible and are not contaminated by my beliefs, you beliefs, or the other thousands of Protestant forks, the islanders would probably want to know where these Apostles are.

The question is where are these Apostles and how do I contact them? They read that the line of Apostles is not broken and the Aposltes track each other as they travel. This is in the Biblical! This is all throughout the Acts of the Apostles.

They would assume that the Apostles are based out of Jerusalem and that the Temple still stands. They would probably try to contat the unbroken line of Apostles. They might find the Bible a bit large to consume quickly.

[Brain_Mach1]

wow
I was raised Church of Christ. While they said if I did not anty up once a week, I'd burn, I have never heard it put so bluntly as pay now or pay later.
There is alot of money in salvation/fear. As a video editor for TBN, I saw many a person hand over every dollar they had to buy their way into heaven. It was sickening and it was sad. This is the exact same thing... extorting weak minds for their money. This imbitches God as they play pimp. man, I hope they dont really believe what they preach or its gonna be hell.

uhm, no pun intended.
If the people who editted those vidoes truly believed, they would not edit the videos so much and add noted on the the debators.

Be cautious of editting or by statements of people you don't know anything about.

Feel free to watch the uneditted vidoes. They are longer and have 2 sides along with introductions about the people speaking.

[Casper]

imbitches?


:eek: :D

[Phillystang]

Seeing as how you have already diverged from the Bible at this point, I know you are grasping at straws.

Matthew ends with:
The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Mark say:
He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The disciples are charged with actively proclaiming to the world, not dropping a book from an airplane. Have you seen the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy”? It is a great example of what a Coca Cola bottle can do to people who have not been taught about bottles.Knowing the status that the Mother of the King had in Jewish Monarchy (as presented in 2Samuel and in 1,2Chronicles) they would see the honor given to John to care for her as a great blessing. They might also find it interesting that Mary is the only one whom Jesus performed a miracle just because she asked. He would do no such thing for the Pharisees. They might even conclude that she is the Ark of the New Covenant as seen in Revelation.

But with arguments like this, you are jumping to the fullness of the faith bypassing the basics.

The Islanders would start with the Old Testament and see that the Jews had a liturgical form or worship. Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus give instruction for worship and the Law. They would see that there are leaders of the people.

When Jesus came, he chose 12 apostles as Moses chose 12 princes of the tribes. Jesus commissioned 70 additional disciples as Moses commissioned 70 other leaders of the tribes.

In Acts 1, the Apostles chose Matthias by lots to replace Judas. The see that there are 2 councils of these leaders and that Paul is added to the group. If the islanders believe the Bible and are not contaminated by my beliefs, you beliefs, or the other thousands of Protestant forks, the islanders would probably want to know where these Apostles are.

The question is where are these Apostles and how do I contact them? They read that the line of Apostles is not broken and the Aposltes track each other as they travel. This is in the Biblical! This is all throughout the Acts of the Apostles.

They would assume that the Apostles are based out of Jerusalem and that the Temple still stands. They would probably try to contat the unbroken line of Apostles. They might find the Bible a bit large to consume quickly.
Amazing, simply ubelievable! Traditions of men have clearly clouded your entire view on God's Word and the truth therein. Answer the question, would the Bible alone be efficient for salvation for those that believe apart from mother church?
(I did not say this was the way to evangelize, I said "what if this happened". )

[FSON]

Amazing, simply ubelievable! Traditions of men have clearly clouded your entire view on God's Word and the truth therein. Answer the question, would the Bible alone be efficient for salvation for those that believe apart from mother church?
(I did not say this was the way to evangelize, I said "what if this happened". )
No, Philly-Dilly, man made traditions and standards developed by self appointed men to cull the non compliant is the first door into the house of salvation. The second door is the knowledge that the Mother Mary will talk to G#d for you (by all means have a corner of your house dedicated to her with her statue blessed by your priest). Well, you know the rest of the story. No need for me to expand for possible communal edification, clarification, and revelation. Because, as you know, that is not why we are here.
Oh Mother Mary, I pray to you since you of all people are nearest to G#d, please help me avoid any IRS problems this year. Hail Mary, who gives me comfort. One rosary bead, two rosary bead, three rosary bead for this is written in the Bible, hail Isis, I mean Mary.

[Casper]

Amazing, simply ubelievable! Traditions of men have clearly clouded your entire view on God's Word and the truth therein. Answer the question, would the Bible alone be efficient for salvation for those that believe apart from mother church?
(I did not say this was the way to evangelize, I said "what if this happened". )

Wouldn't the bible be overkill?

Paul didn't need one.

Thomas didn't need one.

In fact there wasn't one around for much of the early church, and the first one (discounting any oral tradition) was condemned as heresy.

[Casper]

Oh Mother Mary, I pray to you since you of all people are nearest to G#d...

You inadvertently nullified your own criticism ;)

[Casper]

I just had an epiphone of stupidity, but Peter obviously had no bible and would not have had any use for one except maybe as kindling.

[Brain_Mach1]

Amazing, simply ubelievable! Traditions of men have clearly clouded your entire view on God's Word and the truth therein. Answer the question, would the Bible alone be efficient for salvation for those that believe apart from mother church?
(I did not say this was the way to evangelize, I said "what if this happened". )If the Bible was EFFICIENT, it would have fewer pages. :rolleyes:

Is the Bible SUFFICIENT? The answer is No. Jesus is our saviour not a book. :rolleyes:

The Apostles filled their ranks as they died out. Read the Act of the Apostles as a history book instead of reading your view into it.

For a simple answer, the Church is the pillar of the faith not a Catholic book called the Bible. Paul tells Timothy this.

Jesus is the word of God. John tells us this. He can not be contained in a simple book.

Jesus left a Church of Apostles and disciples not a book. The Bible is not in the Bible but the ApoStles and disciples and a process to fill the ranks is 100% scriptural.

Moses read the Law to the people. Nehemiah read the law to the people. Did Jesus destroy this or fulfill this?

Moses organized the priesthood and liturgical worship. David restored the priesthood and liturgical worship. Nehemiah restored the priesthood and liturgical worship. Did Jesus destroy this or fulfill this?

The Bible contains the information for salvations but it is not the source of or path to salvation.

The traditions of God are eternal, the traditions of man change as quickly as the birth of a new Protestant denomination.

There is no such thing as a family church, a bible church, an evangelical church, a cowboy church, a biker church, an integrated church, etc... There is only The Church made up of people with different gifts.

There is no such thing as a family church, a bible church, an evangelical church, a cowboy church, a biker church, an integrated church, etc.

If your gifts are different, you may use them in a specific ministry in the One Church. Now you know why there are Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, Sisters of Charity, etc. There is only One Church.

Phillystang, go watch The Gods Must be Crazy. Substitute a Bible for the Coke Bottle.

[Brain_Mach1]

I just had an epiphone of stupidity, but Peter obviously had no bible and would not have had any use for one except maybe as kindling.
Why would Paul say that the Church is the Pillar of Faith to Timothy if it was actually the Bible?

Oh that is right, Timothy did not have a Bible since Paul was still in the act of writing it which is evident by the letter itself.

[Casper]

:D

Except you left yourself open to oral tradition aka Clement.

Doesn't change anything though.

[FSON]

Wouldn't the bible be overkill?

Paul didn't need one.

Thomas didn't need one.

In fact there wasn't one around for much of the early church, and the first one (discounting any oral tradition) was condemned as heresy.
They were guided directly by G#d. Today, we need the priest and Mother Mary to tell us what G#d and the Bible are saying. G#d is so angry at the way we are living today, he refuses to talk to anyone without the proper credentials (read white collar).
Live in the light of standardization as directed by the Department of Standards, measured in international engineering units of course.

[Casper]

They were guided directly by G#d. Today, we need the priest and Mother Mary to tell us what G#d and the Bible are saying. G#d is so angry at the way we are living today, he refuses to talk to anyone without the proper credentials (read white collar).
Live in the light of standardization as directed by the Department of Standards, measured in international engineering units of course.

Until 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council)

[FSON]

Until 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council)
Long live the Department of Standardization!

[Casper]

You may want to reformat that. I can't follow it.

PS: he left you a few openings in previous posts that make for a good flanking maneuver ;)

[Brain_Mach1]

Romans 10
17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures

Romans 1
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."So you agree with me that Faith comes from hearing the message and not from the existance of the Bible? None of the above points to the Bible only. Infact your first quote mentions hearing the Gospel an in being instructed orally.

Moses, David, Nehemiah, and now Paul spoke the message to the people. No Bible in sight!

"Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15).

"I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13).

[Phillystang]

If the Bible was EFFICIENT, it would have fewer pages. :rolleyes:

Is the Bible SUFFICIENT? The answer is No. Jesus is our saviour not a book. :rolleyes:

The Bible points to Jesus, it doesn't point to the Catholic Church. God works and changes hearts through the preaching of the Gospel, not through the preaching of Catholic doctrine. It is no surprise that you continue to avoid the question. You do not believe God's Gospel found in the bible is sufficient for salvation.

Romans 10
17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures

Romans 1
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
The Apostles filled their ranks as they died out. Read the Act of the Apostles as a history book instead of reading your view into it.

1 Corinthians 15:2
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

1 Peter 1
24For,
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25but the word of the Lord stands forever."[a] And this is the word that was preached to you.

Jesus is the word of God. John tells us this. He can not be contained in a simple book.
Right, but is the Bible sufficient for God to bring salvation?

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Jesus left a Church of Apostles and disciples not a book. The Bible is not in the Bible but the ApoStles and disciples and a process to fill the ranks is 100% scriptural. The man made papal system is what you must be referring to. Where is the office of the pope? Where is papal infallibility? Its not there!


Moses read the Law to the people. Nehemiah read the law to the people. Did Jesus destroy this or fulfill this? Fulfilled, not sure of your point.

Moses organized the priesthood and liturgical worship. David restored the priesthood and liturgical worship. Nehemiah restored the priesthood and liturgical worship. Did Jesus destroy this or fulfill this?
Fulfilled, Christ is our high priest, not some silly Pope figure. 1 Peter 2:5&9 points ot the priesthood of every believer, not just the high and mighty in the Catholic church.

The Bible contains the information for salvations but it is not the source of or path to salvation.

Ephesians 1
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.


The traditions of God are eternal, the traditions of man change as quickly as the birth of a new Protestant denomination. Or another infallible Papal declaration, lol.

There is no such thing as a family church, a bible church, an evangelical church, a cowboy church, a biker church, an integrated church, etc... There is only The Church made up of people with different gifts.
Which has to have the word Catholic on it right? lol


There is no such thing as a family church, a bible church, an evangelical church, a cowboy church, a biker church, an integrated church, etc. yada yada

If your gifts are different, you may use them in a specific ministry in the One Church. Now you know why there are Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, Sisters of Charity, etc. There is only One Church. Right right, after you just said there is "no such thing as a family church, a bible church, an evangelical church, a cowboy church, a biker church, an integrated church," you come up with a foreign list of nonbiblical Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, Sisters of Charity that you somehow declare as One Church. Quite strange.

Phillystang, go watch The Gods Must be Crazy. Substitute a Bible for the Coke Bottle.
:confused:

[Brain_Mach1]

You may want to reformat that. I can't follow it.

PS: he left you a few openings in previous posts that make for a good flanking maneuver ;)Just wait. He is currently searching for James White video clips. He will come back with something.

I know he is not busy watching The Gods Must Be Crazy. Phillystang would never read/watch anything I suggested, as I do with some of his suggestions.

I think he is afraid he might be converted if he investigates any source I post. ;)

[Phillystang]

I think he is afraid he might be converted if he investigates any source I post. ;)
lol

[Phillystang]

So you agree with me that Faith comes from hearing the message and not from the existance of the Bible? None of the above points to the Bible only. Infact your first quote mentions hearing the Gospel an in being instructed orally.

Moses, David, Nehemiah, and now Paul spoke the message to the people. No Bible in sight!

"Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15).

"I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13).
I hit submit reply on accident before I finished

[Brain_Mach1]

The Bible points to Jesus, it doesn't point to the Catholic Church. God works and changes hearts through the preaching of the Gospel, not through the preaching of Catholic doctrine. It is no surprise that you continue to avoid the question. I thought I answered the question. What was Phillystang’s question?Answer the question, would the Bible alone be efficient for salvation for those that believe apart from mother church? What did Brain_Mach1 answer?If the Bible was EFFICIENT, it would have fewer pages.

Is the Bible SUFFICIENT? The answer is No. Jesus is our savior not a book. What else did Brain_Mach1 say? Why would Paul say that the Church is the Pillar of Faith to Timothy if it was actually the Bible?Am I supposed to take you seriously when you don’t even read my posts?

[Brain_Mach1]

They were guided directly by G#d. Today, we need the priest and Mother Mary to tell us what G#d and the Bible are saying. G#d is so angry at the way we are living today, he refuses to talk to anyone without the proper credentials (read white collar).You are correct that God guided the Apostles. The apostles also chose Matthius to replace Judas. Paul was added the group. If the Bible is literal, there should be a college of Apostles on Earth right now, guided by God!

The Apostolic Churches believe that their Bishops are the continuation of the addition of Apostles that is evident in the Acts of the Apostles.

For the people in Churches which are not Apostolic, I wonder what they believe happened to the Apostles and the process of added more.

FSON, I have no idea where you get the idea of God being angry and only talks to people in white collars. Can you please elaborate?

FSON, I am also confused why you mention Mary?

[Casper]

I find a common thread in many disputes over authority in religious discussions. I see it often with "fire breathing athiests", for instance. They tend to disparage a given theology because they see it as an unwarranted appeal to total authority, authority which they are unwilling to accept. Almost as if they feel threatened because they project their own self-realized desires for authority on those whom they want to distance themselves from.

I think the theists on the board will recognize this, and I posit that this same projection of unearned authority extends to debates between theist sects.

That is why I try (sometimes unsuccesfully) to refrain from attacking something for its presumed position of authority and prefer to dig down to the real disagreement, which sometimes turns out to be one and the same, sometimnes not.

Brain, you implied at least twice (though maybe not in this thread) that the Christian world was perfectly content for roughly 15 centuries with one "church", split theologicaly but mostly only on the interpretation of what succession means. I though maybe Philly would take the opportunity and run with it, but for whatever reason he hasn't. So I will.

There isn't a "grand harmony" between catholic and orthodox christianity for the first 15 centuries, and I'm not counting small fringe groups.

There are Coptics. Still alive and well today.

Marcionites, a major movement in the eastern or neo-seleucid empire.

Gnostics, a widespread, diverse and almost neo-platonic side, worthy of considerable apologetic dismissal going by the sheer volume of written antitheses offered.

Anabaptists, a truly persecuted group that shares much in administrative theology with the later Calvinists. Some would say proto-Calvinists.

Paulicans, a possible holdout of Marcionism, attesting at least to the differences between the petrine and Pauline doctrines.

Arians and Docetists, whom it can be argued were swallowed up by the eastern Orthodox side of the post Nicene schism, but only if you discount the numerous and in-depth treateses put forth by the Iberian Visigoths, which were in fact a "keeper of the light" regarding Roman Catholicism.

Ebionites, which interestingly represent a pre-jesuit christianity, or an early "Jews for Jesus" messianic movement, which itself has waxed and waned through time, especially considering any crypto-judaic sentiments, again a product of Iberian theology and politics.

I'm probably omitting others, but this should be enough to dispel any notion of a centralized dogma with a simple binary split of perspective. Even within the eastern churches, the eastern idea of theocracy subservient to secular authority spawned plenty of disparate groups.

But I'm sure Philly intended to post something like this earlier but got pressed for time [/debil's advocate] :D

[Brain_Mach1]

I am aware of the Orthodox groups and some of the heretical groups which is why I have been says Apostolic Churches in my recent discussions. I know you are aware of these because you have studied history independent of your local preacher.

These are the Churches which have a claim to Apostolic Succession such as the many Orthodox Churches some of which you named. Their bishops trace their ordinations back to the Apostles as the original Apostles did in Acts Chapter 1.

It appears to me that some of my Protestants brothers here go from 0 to Pope without realizing that there are Churches which claim Apostolic Succession but don’t recognize the Pope as supreme.

To recognize these Churches would be to recognize Earthly Authority and to recognize liturgical worship. I am not saying they have to agree as you don’t agree.

[Phillystang]

Brian, can you show scriptural support that Apostolic succession is the authoritative mark of God's "Church"?

[FSON]

What is the "earthly" authority difference(s) between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics. Please be neutral in your description, we don't want any residue of your projected desires befouling the image. But, then, the author really has no interpretive control over his writings. So, bring it to the source and see if it stands or fades into nothingness. Hail Merry full of grace, another Coors barkeep! Mary, merry quite contrary, how does your garden grow at the Vatican?

[Phillystang]

What is the "earthly" authority difference(s) between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics. Please be neutral in your description, we don't want any residue of your projected desires befouling the image. But, then, the author really has no interpretive control over his writings. So, bring it to the source and see if it stands or fades into nothingness. Hail Merry full of grace, another Coors barkeep! Mary, merry quite contrary, how does your garden grow at the Vatican?
You crack me up :p

[Brain_Mach1]

Brian, can you show scriptural support that Apostolic succession is the authoritative mark of God's "Church"?There is no dispute that Jesus chose 12 Apostles. Jesus later chose 70 disciples which he sent out. There were thousands of other followers. I don’t think there is any disagreement of this.

The Apostolic Churches believe that there is a difference between the 12 Apostles, the 70 disciples and the rest of his followers. Apostolic Christians believe that when Jesus spoke to these groups His message was not necessarily universal. In other words, He was speaking to them and not the public. He was giving special instructions to people with specific positions.

It is my understanding from talking to some Baptists that they believe that instructions to the Apostles or the 70 are all directed to the general public.

Looking at the above views shows the difference between the most Protestant and the Apostolic Churches. Anglicans consider themselves Apostolic and I think Lutherans too, not sure.

Taking the Apostolic view, they believe that the 12 Apostles are the first Bishops. We know that the Apostles added to the original 12 after Judas killed himself.

Acts1:15-26 He (Peter) said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.… ' And: 'May another take his office.' Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." …. Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

We see that the Apostles are still a special elect group from the 70 or the general public of believers after Jesus’ Ascension.

Even when the people chose deacons to assist with the community, what happens to these people?

Act 6:3-6 So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, "It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

The deacons were presented to the Apostles for the laying on of hands. The 12 are in a position different from the public and the deacons are presented to the apostles.

Paul is another example. Acts 9:15-17 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name." So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."

Ananias does what the Apostles do with the laying of hands. This would imply that he was an Bishop. Acts does not say this, but it does not say anything about who took the Church to Antioch.

What does Paul do in Acts 9:27-28 Then Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the apostles, and he reported to them how on the way he had seen the Lord and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. He moved about freely with them in Jerusalem, and spoke out boldly in the name of the Lord.

Paul reported to the apostles. He did not stay separate from them.

These all show succession in the eyes of the Apostolic Churches. There are apostles, disciples, and deacons. The Authority also comes from Acts.

Acts 10:45-48 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded,
"Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Why were the circumcised believers were astonished? They had a belief which was not true. Peter clarified the situation. A change was instituted at the word of Peter by the action of the Holy Spirit. Scripture said a person had to be circumcised. We have a difference in understanding between the believers and Peter. History chose to follow the command of Peter to baptize those uncircumcised.

Acts 15 sets this in stone

V1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved."

Within Protestantism, there are disagreements about many theological issues just as the early Church had disagreements.

V6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.

The result to the Church, not to the individual is:

V28-29 “It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right."

[Brain_Mach1]

What is the "earthly" authority difference(s) between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics. Please be neutral in your description, we don't want any residue of your projected desires befouling the image. But, then, the author really has no interpretive control over his writings. So, bring it to the source and see if it stands or fades into nothingness. Hail Merry full of grace, another Coors barkeep! Mary, merry quite contrary, how does your garden grow at the Vatican?Should I answer a question from you? I have noticed you and Phillystang have a hard time answering questions. Phillystang may not call Mary "blessed", but he does not ridicual her. Check Luke 1:48 if you need help.FSON, I have no idea where you get the idea of God being angry and only talks to people in white collars. Can you please elaborate?

FSON, I am also confused why you mention Mary?Please explain why anyone should take you seriously?

[Brain_Mach1]

Brian, can you show scriptural support that Apostolic succession is the authoritative mark of God's "Church"?
Your turn.

If the Apostles replace dead brothers (Acts Chapter 1), where are the Apostles now?

[Phillystang]

Your turn.

If the Apostles replace dead brothers (Acts Chapter 1), where are the Apostles now?
The apostles were personally sent by Jesus and did many open miracles. So let me ask you, where are the Apostles now? If there are still apostles, where are the miracles, Benny Hinn? lol.

There is now no physical presence of Jesus and no visible and clear miracles on par with what Paul and Peter did, so I would conclude the Apostles were for a special purpose at a special time. Since God's Word had become complete and the Church had been established, there was no further need for their special function.

Luke 9 shows a clear instance that a man unknown to the apostles was doing miracles in Jesus' name and the man was not rebuked for having no apostolic link.

Luke 9
49"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."

50"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

I would again ask you for biblical New Testament instructions where God's Church must be able to trace its roots back to the Apostles in order to be from God and all other somehow disqualified. Reform is good, when we stray from the truth, it is better to get back to the truth rather than continue straying for the sake of tradition.

[Phillystang]

If the Bible was EFFICIENT, it would have fewer pages. :rolleyes:

Is the Bible SUFFICIENT? The answer is No.

Paul says otherwise, I'll stick with Paul.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[Casper]

Except that Paul never personally met Jesus. His interaction with Christ was all a dream/vision. His apostolic status was conferred in absentia (Acts 9).

So if Paul was an apostle, why not, for instance, Benny Hinn?

[FSON]

Should I answer a question from you? I have noticed you and Phillystang have a hard time answering questions. Phillystang may not call Mary "blessed", but he does not ridicual her. Check Luke 1:48 if you need help.Please explain why anyone should take you seriously?

Mary the mother of Jesus and the Catholic Mary the mother of G#d are not the same person. Why should anyone pray to a dead woman who is waiting in the grave for her son to return and bring her back to the source or Per-Gato-Rum wherever the Gato-lic fire that may be. Oh, Per-Gato-Rum is mentioned in the wholy book of Wiley Coyote Fails Again, Part 3, Reel 17 where the Roadrunner avoids the falling anvil.

[Casper]

Why should anyone pray to a dead woman who is waiting in the grave for her son to return and bring her back to the source or Per-Gato-Rum wherever the Gato-lic fire that may be.

If you want to dismiss Catholic dogma you should learn it first.

[FSON]

If you want to dismiss Catholic dogma you should learn it first.
Catholic dogma is fine in and of itself but should not walk the streets proclaiming itself the Christian source, because it is not. It is something different... and who knows that?

[Casper]

Why is it not?

Of course I don't believe that, but for purely secular reasons. I am a mythicist; ie: Jesus Christ never existed, and Chjristianity is a syncretism of myth. Not even a historical kernel exists (no actual figure called Isous by Greek writers, who was called Yeshua in Aramaic, who had Jewish followers, etc).

But when you attack something as false because it dismisses a competing doctrine, you imply that doctrine is true. That is the crux of the debate going on between Brian and Philly. Your position only seems to be that there is a debate which casts doubt on a particular side in favor of another.

Kind of like two people arguing over what color the sky is, then a blind man comes along and decide that the one who says the sky is green has to be wrong because the one who says it is orange disagrees.

[FSON]

I see nothing in the Catholic Bible thatsays anyone should pray to "Mother Mary", nowhere does it say ther should be priests and nuns who shall not marry (somehow they are better or closer to Jesus than a "lay person"). This is arguing from within the Catholic cloister and that is just the surface.
So, yes, the Catholic church is something different from what is written in their Bible. It is apart from itself and looks to itself.

I ask again, what is the source?

[Casper]

You should study up on Christian exegisis from Jewish text. That is the source for much of the New testament, and the source of much dispute.

The idea of an intercessor granting forgiveness is Jewish.

The idea that only specific individuals are worthy of being intercessors is Jewish as well.

In your criticisms you have only pointed out the antiquity of the ideas.

[FSON]

You should study up on Christian exegisis from Jewish text. That is the source for much of the New testament, and the source of much dispute.

The idea of an intercessor granting forgiveness is Jewish.

The idea that only specific individuals are worthy of being intercessors is Jewish as well.

In your criticisms you have only pointed out the antiquity of the ideas.

Where does it say in the New Testement that Christians should follow Jewish ideas?... and "idea" is a good word.

I want to find more dead people to intercede for me because I may not even make it to Per Gato Rum. Mother Mary, I have sinned against the Gato-Lick Gurg-itation. Please ask El Patron to lessen my number of lickings.

[Brain_Mach1]

Paul says otherwise, I'll stick with Paul.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.Paul is refering to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is still relevent even though there is the Gospel and we are no longer tied by the Mosaic Law.

It is highly unlikely Paul is telling Timothy about letters and books which are not written yet.

Some books believed to be writen AFTER 2 Timothy are: 2Peter, Titus, possibly Gospel according to John.

[Casper]

Paul is refering to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is still relevent even though there is the Gospel and we are no longer tied by the Mosaic Law.

It is highly unlikely Paul is telling Timothy about letters and books which are not written yet.

Some books believed to be writen AFTER 2 Timothy are: 2Peter, Titus, possibly Gospel according to John.

To add to that, Timothy isn't even a pastoral. That may or may not have bearing on what one thinks of the authorship of that particular epistle.

[Brain_Mach1]

The apostles were personally sent by Jesus and did many open miracles. So let me ask you, where are the Apostles now? If there are still apostles, where are the miracles, Benny Hinn? lol.The Catholic Church recognizes miracles. They are happening constantly. The problem is that people don’t believe unless they see themselves.

As for driving out demons, the Catholic Church recognizes exorcisms.

Luke 11 Others, to test him, asked him for a sign from heaven.
Matthew 16 The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.

People recognize only the signs they want to recognize.There is now no physical presence of Jesus and no visible and clear miracles on par with what Paul and Peter did, so I would conclude the Apostles were for a special purpose at a special time. Since God's Word had become complete and the Church had been established, there was no further need for their special function. Catholics believe Jesus is present. We have a very personal relationship with Jesus. I can’t respond to this except to feel sorry for you for not experiencing Jesus in a personal way or recognizing those who perform miracles in His name. This is part of Catholic life. Rent a DVD about Padre Pio for a 20th centrury saint or lookup Venerable Solanus Casey for a 20th centrury American.

I guess that is part having the Church be our pillar of Faith and not a book.Luke 9 shows a clear instance that a man unknown to the apostles was doing miracles in Jesus' name and the man was not rebuked for having no apostolic link.

Luke 9
49"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."

50"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you. "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.I would again ask you for biblical New Testament instructions where God's Church must be able to trace its roots back to the Apostles in order to be from God and all other somehow disqualified. Reform is good, when we stray from the truth, it is better to get back to the truth rather than continue straying for the sake of tradition.I would say that the burden of proof falls to those who disagree with the Apostolic Churches since these Churches are the ones which trace themselves to the time of Christ and have such similar beliefs.

I have shown how the Apostles replaced members who died and how they added people from Acts of the Apostles. If the Bible is efficient (or sufficient) where does it say the process ends? If the Bible is your pillar of Faith, you must show me where it says the process ends.

The Acts of the Apostles ends very abruptly. Is part lost, or is it continuing to today…

[FSON]

The Acts of the Apostles ends very abruptly. Is part lost, or is it continuing to today…

This is new to me from a Catholic, please expand.

[Phillystang]

The Catholic Church recognizes miracles. They are happening constantly. The problem is that people don’t believe unless they see themselves.
I am not talking about "little Johnny got over his cancer". I am talking about an apostolic miracle, like telling a dead man to rise up.

As for driving out demons, the Catholic Church recognizes exorcisms.

Luke 11 Others, to test him, asked him for a sign from heaven.
Matthew 16 The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.

People recognize only the signs they want to recognize.Catholics believe Jesus is present. We have a very personal relationship with Jesus. I can’t respond to this except to feel sorry for you for not experiencing Jesus in a personal way or recognizing those who perform miracles in His name. This is part of Catholic life. Rent a DVD about Padre Pio for a 20th centrury saint or lookup Venerable Solanus Casey for a 20th centrury American.

No need to feel sorry for me, I feel sorry for you.

I guess that is part having the Church be our pillar of Faith and not a book.Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.I would say that the burden of proof falls to those who disagree with the Apostolic Churches since these Churches are the ones which trace themselves to the time of Christ and have such similar beliefs.
Ah yes, "Actions" and "achieve", words very synonymous with a works-based salvation rather than one of God's grace and mercy. Popey say the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and yet, we find that some who are not part of her, yet are sincere, can still be saved. Thank goodness for that special clause, right?

I have shown how the Apostles replaced members who died and how they added people from Acts of the Apostles. If the Bible is efficient (or sufficient) where does it say the process ends? If the Bible is your pillar of Faith, you must show me where it says the process ends.
Where does it say the process continues apart from replacing Judas to make 12 again?

Revelation 21:14
14The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Sure someone can be proclaimed to be an apostle, but where is the miraculous wonders on par with that of the 12? If it has continued, then the 'apostles' of today should have cured aids, death, and disease by now.

The Acts of the Apostles ends very abruptly. Is part lost, or is it continuing to today…Show me a miracle on par with instantaneous calls for the dead to rise and for lepers and blind to be healed by just a word and I will believe.

[BrianC]

The Bible is not the Pillar of truth, the Church is the pillar of truth. The Church is 2000 years old.

Holy crap, I think I just crapped in my pants, because it smells really bad in here! Oh, nevermind. That's the BS stackin' up. I better put my boots on. HAHAHAHA Just kiddin'. ;)

Not sure if you're aware of this, but while the church is 2,000 years old, the Bible is approximately 4,000 years old starting with the book of Job being the earliest written book.

Mankind and the church have been proven to be wrong many times. And if you ask me, the longer the church as been around, the more mistakes they've probably made, because mankind just needs time before he'll screw something up.

The Bible has never been proven wrong on anything. The Catholic church has changed doctrines many time, though, and we have seen popes in the past make some bad decisions.

The sheer fact that the Bible says it is God breathed and inspiried by the Holy Spirit, it's saying that it's infallible...and it tells us mankind is anything but infallible.

You know, the Mormons say the church is the pillar of truth too, and that if the prophet or an oracle tells you to do something that's against the Bible or Book of Mormon, you do it and don't question it, because it is right. You should go join the Mormons, because they apparently believe like you do.

If you didn't notice, most of the Bible is God, the prophets and apostles fighting AGAINST the religious and legalistic who ALWAYS, inevitably screw up the good things God gave them by enslaving men to legalism when Jesus came to free us from that stuff. Catholics are reminded of sin constantly and must go to confession, depending on what type of Catholic you are, and many Catholics leave because they feel so guilty and beaten down by this. That's not freedom in Christ. That's bondage to sin and legalism.

We are meant to be FREE from sin, not have to remember everything we've ever done and confess it to some preist who is the one that decides whether we're forgiven or not, then tells us to say 10 hail marys as punishment. The Bible says not to call any man father, yet the Catholics do. It's like they've replaced the Father with a priest in the pulpit, and Jesus with a priest in confession.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to talk directly to Jesus and the Father and I prefer to learn from the Holy Spirit and the Bible instead of a man who makes me stand and kneel through most of a church service. I have learned far more in my own reading and studies than I ever could've hoped to learn in any church on the planet. I can debate any pastor or priest on doctrine and scripture and stand my ground and usually destroy them if they have false doctrines. And I sure as hell didn't get that from sitting in church or standing and kneeling.

Statements like "the church is the pillar of truth" just make me laugh and feel sorry for those that are in bondage to legalism and religion and religious servitude. Sucks to be you...

[BrianC]

As for driving out demons, the Catholic Church recognizes exorcisms.

I'm not of the Catholic church, yet I command and cast out demons constantly when helping people with Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) heal. How am I doing this without being of the one true church? Never met a demon I couldn't command or cast out in Jesus' name.


We have a very personal relationship with Jesus.

Sounds like some of you have a more personal relationship with your priests. I guess the whole priest on boy action is not becoming of the one TRUE church, yet it runs rampant through it. Wonder why that is?

I have quite a personal relationship with Jesus. And in that personal relationship, He has never once said, "Don't forget one of your sins, and you better go to confession and tell some guy EVERYTHING you did so he can forgive you and make you say hail marys as punishment." lol

[BrianC]

Where does it say in the New Testement that Christians should follow Jewish ideas?... and "idea" is a good word.

I want to find more dead people to intercede for me because I may not even make it to Per Gato Rum. Mother Mary, I have sinned against the Gato-Lick Gurg-itation. Please ask El Patron to lessen my number of lickings.

You bring up a great point. The Bible says not to talk to the dead, yet I guarantee if a Catholic saw a ghost they thought to be the Mother Mary, they'd chat her up all night. lol Catholics pray to dead people, and no where in the Bible does it say to do this. It only says not to communicate with the dead.

[BrianC]

Paul is refering to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is still relevent even though there is the Gospel and we are no longer tied by the Mosaic Law.

It is highly unlikely Paul is telling Timothy about letters and books which are not written yet.

Some books believed to be writen AFTER 2 Timothy are: 2Peter, Titus, possibly Gospel according to John.

The Catholics must REALLY think the Old Testament is more relavent than the New Testament, because all they seem to talk about or quote in church is the Old Testament fire and brimstone. To be fair, that's not across the board, but it is very prevalent in the Roman Catholic churches, or moreso anyway.

[BrianC]

Except that Paul never personally met Jesus. His interaction with Christ was all a dream/vision. His apostolic status was conferred in absentia (Acts 9).

So if Paul was an apostle, why not, for instance, Benny Hinn?

Actually, Paul most likely did meet Jesus in person, because Paul says he learned directly from Jesus so that no man could be credited with teaching him. Paul never says he met Jesus in dream or vision to my knowledge. Jesus rose from the dead and showed himself to many people. I know people today who say they've talked to Him in person before for hours. Some of them say they are afraid to tell people because they are afraid they'll think they're crazy. The people I know that claim this are perfectly sane and perfectly trustworthy, and have no reason to lie about such a thing. I only say this to show that it is possible to see Jesus, not in vision or dream, and learn from Him as Paul says he did.

When I work with people who have Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), they all say they see Jesus inside. Even people who've never heard about Jesus or angels or demons will see all of them in this inside world they see. Call it a different dimension, call it a part of heaven...whatever... they see it. If they see Jesus and have never heard of Him before, they call Him the Shining Man with Hurt Hands. They all see angels and call them shining ones if they've never heard of them. And they all say they have 2, 4 and 6 wings, yet the Bible does not tell us this. How do they all see the same thing in this inner world? It's not a conspiracy...that's impossible to pull off. People do apparently see Jesus nowadays. Paul, I'm sure, spent years with Him learning, because Paul said he was charged with interpreting the gospel. Paul even had to set Peter straight on one occasion! Isn't Peter supposed to be your first Pope (without proof, might I add)? Paul had to pimp slap him doctrinally at first. Why didn't Peter write most of the New Testament? Oh, he was too busy taking confessions I guess...

And Benny Hinn is a false prophet, because he said Jesus told him he was coming back on a certain date in a certain year a few years ago, and it never happened. He's a complete fraud. That's a bad person to compare Paul too. lol

[BrianC]

The apostles were personally sent by Jesus and did many open miracles. So let me ask you, where are the Apostles now? If there are still apostles, where are the miracles, Benny Hinn? lol.


Wait, Philly, are you actually saying you don't believe miracles happen today??

Wow...can't tell you how many miracles I've seen happen today, and this is first hand, and not by some TV Evangelist (who make me sick, by the way).

For instance, a kid at a local church in Lewisville was born with no ear drum in one ear. The guy didn't know to pray for that, so he prays for healing twice and it doesn't work. He finds out the boy has no ear drum and then prays for a miracle of a new ear drum. The kid suddenly can hear, and they x-ray the ear and there's an ear drum now. This is just a local kid that's always gone to that church, not some staged event. Yeah, miracles happen today. That's just one example.

[FSON]

You bring up a great point. The Bible says not to talk to the dead, yet I guarantee if a Catholic saw a ghost they thought to be the Mother Mary, they'd chat her up all night. lol Catholics pray to dead people, and no where in the Bible does it say to do this. It only says not to communicate with the dead.
Exactly, that's why I don't pray to Mother Merry, she's dead, buried, waiting for her son to return to take her to his home in the sky. Or she is in the Gato-Lick Per- Gato Rum Cellar boozing it up on Rum and Coke somewhere in the Devil's Triangle just off the coast of Bermuda. I hope the christ returns when she's not stumbling in the gutter.

[FSON]

And Benny Hinn is a false prophet, because he said Jesus told him he was coming back on a certain date in a certain year a few years ago, and it never happened. He's a complete fraud. That's a bad person to compare Paul too. lol

That may be a Catholic interpretation of the return.

[FSON]

Actually, Paul most likely did meet Jesus in person, because Paul says he learned directly from Jesus so that no man could be credited with teaching him.

Sometimes I wonder, who was this person Pale. He comes barging onto the scene like General Al Hage at the White House... "I'm in charge here!" and everyone accepts him. He was never taught by the christ. Any person the christ met on the road would have more credibility as an Al Hage than Pale. I have as much credibility as Pale as being the next Pope and I'm not Catholic. Pale is simply beyond the pale.

[Brain_Mach1]

The Catholics must REALLY think the Old Testament is more relavent than the New Testament, because all they seem to talk about or quote in church is the Old Testament fire and brimstone. To be fair, that's not across the board, but it is very prevalent in the Roman Catholic churches, or moreso anyway.Actually, Sunday Mass is an Old Testament reading, a Psalm, a new Testament reading, and a Gospel reading.

Daily Mass is an Old Testament reading, a Pslam, and a Gospel reading.

Many of the prayers used in the Mass have content from the Book of Revelation.

In Paul's letter, he was refereing to the Old Testament since the new was not written yet.

[Brain_Mach1]

Holy crap, I think I just crapped in my pants, because it smells really bad in here! Oh, nevermind. That's the BS stackin' up. I better put my boots on. HAHAHAHA Just kiddin'. ;)
...
Statements like "the church is the pillar of truth" just make me laugh and feel sorry for those that are in bondage to legalism and religion and religious servitude. Sucks to be you...Well, it is scripture 1Timothy3:15....

NAB "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

NIV "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Jing James "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

[Brain_Mach1]

If you didn't notice, most of the Bible is God, the prophets and apostles fighting AGAINST the religious and legalistic who ALWAYS, inevitably screw up the good things God gave them by enslaving men to legalism when Jesus came to free us from that stuff. Catholics are reminded of sin constantly and must go to confession, depending on what type of Catholic you are, and many Catholics leave because they feel so guilty and beaten down by this. That's not freedom in Christ. That's bondage to sin and legalism. Actually, I am reading through the Historic books now and they are about returning worship to the priests and the temple (from Solomon on).

Starting with Moses through David and onto Elisah (where I am now)....

Pick and choose your verses among the entire book.

Even the Apostles went to the Temple (check Acts) and the synagogues.

[BrianC]

Well, it is scripture 1Timothy3:15....

NAB "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

NIV "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Jing James "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

I was laughing at the statement because you were putting the church above the Bible in authority.

Notice that we are a "pillar" of truth, but every pillar has a foundation. The Bible (God's Word) and Jesus are the foundation. Mankind is fallible and always twists the things of God. For instance, mankind just twisted that scripture to mean the church is above the Bible in authorty when it clearly says nothing of the sort. :)

[Brain_Mach1]

I was laughing at the statement because you were putting the church above the Bible in authority.

Notice that we are a "pillar" of truth, but every pillar has a foundation. The Bible (God's Word) and Jesus are the foundation. Mankind is fallible and always twists the things of God. For instance, mankind just twisted that scripture to mean the church is above the Bible in authority when it clearly says nothing of the sort. :)You stated in Athiests: Why Debate so Vigorously? Why Bother? That you don't regularly attend any specific church. This makes it sound as if you have no pillar on your foundation Jesus Christ?

You are making statements without scripture reference. Where is the Bible the foundation for the pillar of the church? Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build his Church.

Your comments about twisting are great since you have twisted my statements.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are 3 equal parts which must agree for our faith in Christ to be true, not one: The Bible, Tradition, and Magisterium (apostolic successors).

1. Tradition
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

2. Magisteriun
Go to Acts 1 and 15. Using Bible only, we all have to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic laws. Because of a magisterium and a tradition of God, the Apostles are able to make binding decision after Jesus had ascended.

3. Sacred Scripture (New and Old Testament)
We all believe in the Bible (even though it is not in the Bible).

Don't read into my posts with comments about Church being above stripture. But please show me where it says the Bible is the foundation for the Church.

[Phillystang]

Wait, Philly, are you actually saying you don't believe miracles happen today??

Wow...can't tell you how many miracles I've seen happen today, and this is first hand, and not by some TV Evangelist (who make me sick, by the way).

For instance, a kid at a local church in Lewisville was born with no ear drum in one ear. The guy didn't know to pray for that, so he prays for healing twice and it doesn't work. He finds out the boy has no ear drum and then prays for a miracle of a new ear drum. The kid suddenly can hear, and they x-ray the ear and there's an ear drum now. This is just a local kid that's always gone to that church, not some staged event. Yeah, miracles happen today. That's just one example.

I believe in miracles, but not on par with the apostolic ministry of calling the dead to rise and instantaneously healing the lame by just a word.

[BrianC]

You stated in Athiests: Why Debate so Vigorously? Why Bother? That you don't regularly attend any specific church. This makes it sound as if you have no pillar on your foundation Jesus Christ?

You are making statements without scripture reference. Where is the Bible the foundation for the pillar of the church? Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build his Church.

Your comments about twisting are great since you have twisted my statements.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are 3 equal parts which must agree for our faith in Christ to be true, not one: The Bible, Tradition, and Magisterium (apostolic successors).

1. Tradition
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

2. Magisteriun
Go to Acts 1 and 15. Using Bible only, we all have to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic laws. Because of a magisterium and a tradition of God, the Apostles are able to make binding decision after Jesus had ascended.

3. Sacred Scripture (New and Old Testament)
We all believe in the Bible (even though it is not in the Bible).

Don't read into my posts with comments about Church being above stripture. But please show me where it says the Bible is the foundation for the Church.



First of all, the "church" in the Bible is the people, not a building or organization. It is a group of Christians that gather together and worship and talk about the Lord and discuss doctrine and things like that. I do that weekly. In fact, aside from that, I am constantly talking to Christian friends and helping those in need. I spend hours of each day helping others through Christ's power and counsel. They had home gatherings back in Bible times and those were so-called "churches." So I actually am probably closer to Biblical TRADITION than you are, unless you attend a weekly Bible study at someone's home.

You need to show me the verses you are talking about in Acts, because after reading through those two chapters, I saw quite the opposite of what you said. Paul and Barnabus debate AGAINST having to be circumsized.

Acts 15:1,2, 5-12, 28,29
1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them

(This means that Paul and Barnabas DISAGREED with them...)

5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.

7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8"And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

10"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

12All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

So, where do you get off saying that we're supposed to do those things to be saved? Please, by all means, explain this.

And the rules given to the bretheren were just to appease their need to have some rules, because Paul didn't want to put any burdens on them at all. We see another place in scripture where Jews came to Christ then tried to go back under the law again, and Paul had to comprimise with them and give them a few rules to go by to make them happy. Please, explain your view of the verses you gave me. Thanks.

Oh, and I made statements and paraphrased scripture, actually. I can post it up for you if you like. And as for the Bible being the foundation of the church, let me restate that. Jesus is the foundation, and the Bible is how we learn who Jesus is and what His will is. So yes, the Bible is how we learn about the foundation of the church.

[Brain_Mach1]

I spend hours of each day helping others through Christ's power and counsel. They had home gatherings back in Bible times and those were so-called "churches." So I actually am probably closer to Biblical TRADITION than you are, unless you attend a weekly Bible study at someone's home.Acts 2:46 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.

Not quite what you said, but you were close.You need to show me the verses you are talking about in Acts, because after reading through those two chapters, I saw quite the opposite of what you said. Paul and Barnabus debate AGAINST having to be circumcised. I have no idea what you think I said. Let’s try this again.The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. This is the first Church Council. A gather in of the Apostles and elders, not the average Joe in the congregation. This is not you and your friends. The Latin word for the Apostles and elders is Magisterium.After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
This is the outcome of the debate. The ruling of the Magisterium.So, where do you get off saying that we're supposed to do those things to be saved? Please, by all means, explain this. This was the Law which is why there was a debate. Those early Christians did not have a New Testament bible but they had the Magesterium to rule on the issue and say you do not need to be circumcised. Notice this was a ruling of a council about Old Testament scripture.

[BrianC]

Acts 2:46 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.

Not quite what you said, but you were close.I have no idea what you think I said. Let’s try this again.This is the first Church Council. A gather in of the Apostles and elders, not the average Joe in the congregation. This is not you and your friends. The Latin word for the Apostles and elders is Magisterium.
This is the outcome of the debate. The ruling of the Magisterium.This was the Law which is why there was a debate. Those early Christians did not have a New Testament bible but they had the Magesterium to rule on the issue and say you do not need to be circumcised. Notice this was a ruling of a council about Old Testament scripture.

Do I need to show the entire chapter to prove that Paul and Barnabus were debating and saying it was wrong to put them under the law and circumsize? Would you like me to show you how we are not under the law anymore, but rather the law has been written on our hearts instead? Would you like me to show you the only commandments that Jesus gave us, which were to love God first, then our neighbors as ourselves, and that ALLLLLL of the commandments (the law) is fulfilled by doing those to things?

Just for the record, the commandments were moral, and the law apart from the commandments were administrative for governing. The law was for the Jews and the Jews alone. You'll notice how the United States uses many of the same laws the Jews used. They even use a lot of the moral laws to make governing laws. Yes, we could do the two commandments Jesus gave us, but the rest of the law is something for the Jews. In fact, look at what Paul says in that passage:

Acts 15:10,11
10"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

Paul just asked why these "religious" "legalistic" Magisterium are trying to place the yoke of the law on these Christians when their forefathers could not even bear the yoke of it? Then He says we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as the also are." Grace, not law. Grace means you are exempt from the law. Grace means trespasses aren't counted against you.

Psalm 32:1,2
1How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
2How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity,

Even David knew his sins were forgiven and no longer counted against him, yet Jesus had not even come yet. How do you explain this?

You believe you can lose your salvation, I'm sure, since you're Catholic. So tell me, if sin is not counted against us anymore, how then can sin condemn us?? Are you saying David lied when he said our sins are not counted against us?

Jesus said:
John 11:26
and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.

So, once you believe in Jesus (meaning born again through believing in Him), are say that you can die spiritually by sinning. Yet that would make Jesus a liar.

Jesus said:
John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life."

If you can lose that eternal life, then it was never eternal to begin with, which makes Jesus a liar.

Jesus said:
John 10:28,29
28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. "

So, if you yourself, by sinning, can snatch yourself out of God's hand, are you more powerful than God? No. And if you could get out of His hand, then He's made a liar. If you think Jesus' sacrifice cannot cover ALL of your sins, even walking away from Him, then you are saying that Jesus' sacrifice is not good enough, and we must do something to earn it or keep it. That makes Him a liar.

Paul says:
Roman 8:35,37-39
35Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
37But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.
38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So, are you saying that Paul is a liar? Because everyone and everything that could ever separate you from the love of God that is in Christ was just covered in that statement. It says "things present, or things to come" cannot separate you. That includes you, because you're present, and it includes sin, because sin is also present. Is Paul a liar in your opinion?

Rom 8:1,2
1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

So, we are FREE from the law of sin and of death, meaning that sin no longer causes death for us. We are under the law of the spirit of life now, which says we have grace and are no longer condemned. We're told there that there is NO condemnation for those in Christ. NONE. So how can the church condemn people who are sinning Christians when Paul says there is no condemnation for them??

Please, by all means, answer how your beliefs of loss of salvation do NOT make Jesus and Paul and David liars.

[Brain_Mach1]

You are as dense as a fossil, if one existed.

I am pointing to the fact that Church councils exist and are biblical.

The example in Acts 15 is a ruling of the Magesterium which keeps the Church unified. I am not arguing one side of the debate, I am pointing to the debate.

There was division in the Church. Both sides participated in a debate.

The Magesterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, made a ruling.

This discussion is about Bible alone or if there is an authority on Earth after Jesus assended with the Bible and sacred tradition. Look back to my points on 3 guiding preinciples of the Church.

I have no idea what you are arguing. Did the debate end or is it still continuing in your mind?

[BrianC]

You are as dense as a fossil, if one existed.

If one existed?? Please tell me you are not denying the existence of fossils....


I am pointing to the fact that Church councils exist and are biblical.

Of course they existed back then. Paul was constantly going into them and setting them straight. He would even go into the Jewish synagauges and set them straight. He was constantly debating their need of legalism and putting everyone under the law when Christians are no longer under the law...


The example in Acts 15 is a ruling of the Magesterium which keeps the Church unified. I am not arguing one side of the debate, I am pointing to the debate.


So you are calling Paul and Barnabus the Magesterium in this case?


There was division in the Church. Both sides participated in a debate.

The Magesterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, made a ruling.

Ok, but at the time, there was no New Testament. The New Testament was written by Paul mostly, which in your argument, is the Magesterium, which means that the New Testament, after it was written, became the Magesterium, which means you just shot yourself in the foot in your own debate. This means that since we definitely DO NOT have a person of the wisdom of Paul who ACTUALLY learned directly from Jesus and whom said himself that he was charged with the task of interpreting the gospel, that we must now use the New Testament as our Megesterium. We can use the Old Testament as well, but the New Testament generally states most things that need to be ruled on, with the exception of a few things I'm sure. Thanks for proving my point, though. I appreciate it.


This discussion is about Bible alone or if there is an authority on Earth after Jesus assended with the Bible and sacred tradition. Look back to my points on 3 guiding preinciples of the Church.

I have no idea what you are arguing. Did the debate end or is it still continuing in your mind?

Well, the fact that you pointed out something about having to be circumsized and follow the law lead me to believe you were arguing that we must be circumsized and follow the law. Then you were using that to show the Magesterium was making a ruling on this matter and that they were more important than the Bible. I was debating the part about circumcision and us being under the law. Did you not say we are under the law or am I just imagining that? I'm not above misreading things from time to time.

So who are you saying is the Magesterium? Paul and Barnabus? Well, if that's the case, I just gave my answer to your topic of debate up above.

Just incase there was some question about circumcision and us being under the law, I'll quote these verses:

1 Cor 7:18,19
18Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.
19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

So, we know circumcision doesn't matter, which I thought everyone understood. I assume you understood this too.

1 Cor 9:20
20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

So, Paul says right here that he is not under the Law, and therefore, we are no longer under the Law either. I assume you understood this too, but Catholics seem to like to put themselves under the Law for some reason...

[Brain_Mach1]

If one existed?? Please tell me you are not denying the existence of fossils....I do not deny fossils exist. It is called a cheap jab. Kinda like when you interject irrelevent items into debates. I made an irrelevent comment about your beliefs on dinosaurs and such.

Of course they (councils) existed back then. Paul was constantly going into them and setting them straight. He would even go into the Jewish synagogues and set them straight. He was constantly debating their need of legalism and putting everyone under the law when Christians are no longer under the law... Not everyone in the synagogues were Christian. Most were still Jews. Don’t confuse debating with Jews debating with Christians.So you are calling Paul and Barnabas the Magesterium in this case? Go back and read post #94. I said who the Magesterium was very clearly. You may press the quote botton next time.

I noticed you glanced over the passage in Acts “The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.”

This is the Magesterium not just Paul and Barnabas. It was not the average Joe in their apartment. It was the Apostles and the elders.Ok, but at the time, there was no New Testament. This creates a problem for your statement:
The Bible (God's Word) and Jesus are the foundation.
So the early Church did not have a complete foundation? But they had the Apostles. Jesus said he would build His Church upon Peter.The New Testament was written by Paul mostly, which in your argument, is the Magesterium, Paul is a member of the Magesterium. Go back and read my posts. It is the Apostles and the elders.which means that the New Testament, after it was written, because the Magesterium, which means you just shot yourself in the foot in your own debate. [/QUTOE]The writings of one member of the Magesterium does not make the entire Magesterium. Paul is but one member. James, John, Peter also had writings in the New Testament and most Apostles have no writings. My foot is fine. Your step from B to C suddenly went of a huge cliff with no support.[QUOTE=BrianC]This means that since we definitely DO NOT have a person of the wisdom of Paul who ACTUALLY learned directly from Jesus and whom said himself that he was charged with the task of interpreting the gospel, that we must now use the New Testament as our Megesterium. Thanks for proving my point, though. I appreciate it. I can’t believe you would slight Peter, James, Jude, and John like that.

Scripture points to the Apostles and the elders. You shrank this to Paul and his writings. Your argument proves nothing. It is still the Apostles and elders interpreting scripture.

Infact, it is Peter who has the last word in the debate about circumcition.Well, the fact that you pointed out something about having to be circumsized and follow the law lead me to believe you were arguing that we must be circumsized and follow the law. Then you were using that to show the Magesterium was making a ruling on this matter and that they were more important than the Bible. Acts 15:7-11. The Magesterium spoke on Scripture.

The Old Testament had the Judges, the New Testament has the Magesterium.

It follows Jesus statements, it follows tradition, and it follows scripture.

[BrianC]

I do not deny fossils exist. It is called a cheap jab. Kinda like when you interject irrelevent items into debates. I made an irrelevent comment about your beliefs on dinosaurs and such.

Ummmm... ok. Guess I missed that one... Now I'm curious what you think I believe about dinosaurs. lol


Not everyone in the synagogues were Christian. Most were still Jews. Don’t confuse debating with Jews debating with Christians. Go back and read post #94. I said who the Magesterium was very clearly. You may press the quote botton next time.

I was speaking of Jews in Jewish Synagauges and Christians in churches. I know he went to both...


I noticed you glanced over the passage in Acts “The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.”

This is the Magesterium not just Paul and Barnabas. It was not the average Joe in their apartment. It was the Apostles and the elders.This creates a problem for your statement:

So the early Church did not have a complete foundation? But they had the Apostles. Jesus said he would build His Church upon Peter.Paul is a member of the Magesterium. Go back and read my posts. It is the Apostles and the elders.

That's fine. But I trust the Bible not the Magesterium.


[QUOTE=BrianC]which means that the New Testament, after it was written, because the Magesterium, which means you just shot yourself in the foot in your own debate. [/QUTOE]The writings of one member of the Magesterium does not make the entire Magesterium. Paul is but one member. James, John, Peter also had writings in the New Testament and most Apostles have no writings. My foot is fine. Your step from B to C suddenly went of a huge cliff with no support.I can’t believe you would slight Peter, James, Jude, and John like that.

They were not the ones that said they were charged with the task of interpreting the gospel. ONLY Paul was, and that's why most of the New Testament is written by him. I can't believe you would slight Paul like that. Paul set Peter straight at one point, actually. Goes to show who was more knowledgeable; Paul... (It's in Galatians I believe)


Scripture points to the Apostles and the elders. You shrank this to Paul and his writings. Your argument proves nothing. It is still the Apostles and elders interpreting scripture.

Infact, it is Peter who has the last word in the debate about circumcition.Acts 15:7-11. The Magesterium spoke on Scripture.

The Old Testament had the Judges, the New Testament has the Magesterium.

It follows Jesus statements, it follows tradition, and it follows scripture.

I get the idea that Peter was more of a stay in the church kind of guy, where as Paul is more of the missionary type (and Missionaries, in my experience, are almost always more knowledgeable then preachers, and usually lead much more godly lives too, immitating Jesus with the whole missionary life and putting themselves in harms way all the time, and martyring themselves if required). That's why Peter would have the last word, and Peter spoke truth too. I have no problem with Peter. But Paul was the one charged with the task of interpreting the gospel, not Peter. Paul is the one that wrote most of the New Testament, not Peter. Paul is the one who had to set Peter straight on doctrine. No offense, but I'd take Paul's word over Peter's any day if it were in person. If it's in the Bible, though, it's solid and true, because the Bible is God breathed and infallible.

I don't "slight" anyone, but I will say who was more knowledgeable than another. And the reason the Magesterium was important at that time is because there was no New Testament to use. Now we have it. And the Magesterium today, whomever you believe that is, should go by the Bible alone. Man is fallible. Are you willing to say that the Magesterium is infallible?

[Brain_Mach1]

That's fine. But I trust the Bible not the Magesterium.But the Bible canon was not created until the 4th Century by a Church Council, ie Magesterium.

Mohammed and John Smith brought a book. Jesus brought a spoken word. The Christian book arrived later. I don't understand why you choose scripture only instead of scripture plus a teaching authority. Please elaberate.

The stuff about Peter is irrellevant.

I get the idea that Peter was more of a stay in the church kind of guy, where as Paul is more of the missionary typeHow do you know where Peter travelled? Non-biblical evidance shows Thomas made it to India, but that is not listed in the Bible. This means that Thomas traveled more miles than Paul. Would this mean Thomas is more creditable than Paul?

No offense, but I'd take Paul's word over Peter's any day if it were in person. If it's in the Bible, though, it's solid and true, because the Bible is God breathed and infallible.Paul would be upset with you on that statement. 1Corinthians Chapter 3. Watch your footing.

I don't "slight" anyone, but I will say who was more knowledgeable than another. And the reason the Magesterium was important at that time is because there was no New Testament to use. Now we have it. And the Magesterium today, whomever you believe that is, should go by the Bible alone. Man is fallible. Are you willing to say that the Magesterium is infallible?The Magesterium is infallible on when speaking on matters of Faith and Morals in the form of a council. If this was not true, the Letters of Paul would be questionable. Who created the Canon? The Magesterium. If the Magesterium is fallible, than the Bible is fallible.

How do you know that the letters of Paul are infallible? A council (the Magesterium) said so.

Paul recognized that a Council can write a letter, which is not scripture, that interprests scripture and carries weight in matters of Faith and Morals. He recognizes that the group can define the rules. This is an act of the Magesterium.

Acts 15: Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them... And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter.
This is not a letter of Paul, not a book of scripture, but a ruling of a council (Magesterium) which Paul and others are delivering. Would Paul deliver the letter if he disagreed?

Where in the Bible does it say that the Magesterium is not neccessary once the Canon is created?

The Canon was defined BY the Magesterium. If they felt their work was complete, they would have disolved themselves in the 4th Century.

[BrianC]

But the Bible canon was not created until the 4th Century by a Church Council, ie Magesterium.

Mohammed and John Smith brought a book. Jesus brought a spoken word. The Christian book arrived later. I don't understand why you choose scripture only instead of scripture plus a teaching authority. Please elaberate.

The stuff about Peter is irrellevant.

How do you know where Peter travelled? Non-biblical evidance shows Thomas made it to India, but that is not listed in the Bible. This means that Thomas traveled more miles than Paul. Would this mean Thomas is more creditable than Paul?

Paul would be upset with you on that statement. 1Corinthians Chapter 3. Watch your footing.

The Magesterium is infallible on when speaking on matters of Faith and Morals in the form of a council. If this was not true, the Letters of Paul would be questionable. Who created the Canon? The Magesterium. If the Magesterium is fallible, than the Bible is fallible.

How do you know that the letters of Paul are infallible? A council (the Magesterium) said so.

Paul recognized that a Council can write a letter, which is not scripture, that interprests scripture and carries weight in matters of Faith and Morals. He recognizes that the group can define the rules. This is an act of the Magesterium.

Acts 15: Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them... And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter.
This is not a letter of Paul, not a book of scripture, but a ruling of a council (Magesterium) which Paul and others are delivering. Would Paul deliver the letter if he disagreed?

Where in the Bible does it say that the Magesterium is not neccessary once the Canon is created?

The Canon was defined BY the Magesterium. If they felt their work was complete, they would have disolved themselves in the 4th Century.

The Magesterium back then was much more pure and I have no problem with them, generally. It was the 7 churches of Asia that picked which letters and books would be included in the New Testament canon; most written by Paul. They had to all agree that the Holy Spirit had told them this was a book to be placed in the canon. So yes, back then, I have no doubt that they did this correctly. Since then, I think the idea of an infallible Magesterium is absolutely ludicris. Look at what the Vatican and Catholic church has done throughout history?? Are you saying that EVERYTHING they've done was legitimate?? It has been estimated that the Catholic church is responsible for more Christian deaths than any other one entity or nation. I have nothing against Catholics, but I dislike the Vatican a great deal.

Let me tell you a little story... Back in the days when Jews were being hunted down, during the 1,000 year reign of the Holy Roman Empire, the Catholics would tell the Jews, "Leave your possessions with us. Then we will hide you, and when your persuers come looking for you, we will send them away saying that you have fled the city." The Jews would leave their possessions with the Catholics, then they would hide. The Catholics would tell the people looking for the Jews where they were hiding and they would get slaughtered and the Catholics would keep all of their possessions. This is one way the Catholics became so rich back in those times, able to build such expensive and gold laden cathedrals. Would that money spent on the gold in the cathedrals not have been better spent on the homeless and widows as was instructed in the old law?

Let me share a little prophecy with ya'...

Revelation 17:3-7,9
3And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.
4The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality,
5and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."
6And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly.
7And the angel said to me, "Why do you wonder? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.
9"Here is the mind which has wisdom The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, (this can also be seven hills, depending on the translation, but it doesn't make a difference).

Notice how this woman sits on seven hills/mountains? Well, Rome is known as the city on seven hills (hills meaning mountains, actually). And Vatican City is in Rome. The cardinals wear red, and the bishops were purple, as depicted of the whore in the prophecy above. She's called Mystery Babylon, and Jesus says, "Come out of her my people so that you do not share in the plagues I shall bring down up on her." (Paraphrased)

Now, in the 1,500s, the Pope was losing a lot of catholics to the Protestant Reformation, because people had started to understand that they were in the tribulation at that time (because the tribulation took place over a VERY long time), and the Vatican & Rome were Mystery Babylon. So the Pope commissioned two Jesuit priests to come up with alternate prophetic interpretations; one past and one future interpretation. You are welcome to look up this account in history. It's well documented. It is where the futurist movement came from and the future seven year tribulation, which I can completely destroy biblically. So futurist prophecy was just a ploy to throw off Catholics so they would not believe the people saying that Catholic church and Rome were Mystery Babylon and drunk with the blood of the saints (all of which was accurate). This came during the Spanish Inquisition of 1478, which was not officially done away with till 1834 by Isabel II.

As you can see, I have quite a good reason for not trusting the Catholic church. Remember how the Bible talks about a "great falling away" that must occur before Jesus returns (2 Thess 2:1-4), well this can definitely qualify as a great falling away. Even the Protestants coming out of the Catholic church were messed up still by the Catholic teachings. Calvin wrote a 500 page book about how to justifiably identify, torture and kill fake Christians who didn't believe just like he did. Quite disturbing stuff. The denomination that came along and finally ended that type of thing was the Baptist religion who said there is no reason to look down on other denominations nor kill or torture anyone. I'm non-denominational, but I must say that the Baptists have the closest to correct doctrines.

I'm done with Magesterium talk. I've seen what your Magesterium has done in the past when partnered with Rome. You can also read about how the Pope held out from choosing a side during WWII, and had been in talks with Hitler and planned to partner with him if he won the war and ruled the world. Yeah... nice Magesterium you got there, Brian. Who wouldn't want to be a part of that? lol You call the acts mentioned in the above paragraphs morally correct and from infallible people? What major BS that is... The Bible is infallible. Man is not, and that's the end of it. I'm done commenting on the Magesterium...

[Phillystang]

Brain_Mach1

Show me the current apostles that are out there calling the dead to rise and instantaneously healing the sick by just a word, I am waiting.... Surely they have this on video if it is still going on.

[Brain_Mach1]

Brain_Mach1

Show me the current apostles that are out there calling the dead to rise and instantaneously healing the sick by just a word, I am waiting.... Surely they have this on video if it is still going on.I take it you are finished wathing DVDs or reading books about Padre Pio and Solanus Casey and are ready to continue. Or you atleast read about them on the internet.

If you have, I will continue this discussion with you. If not, you are not worth my time.

As I said before I read about information you post. You should show the same respect.

[Brain_Mach1]

Elijah, Elisha, Peter, and Paul are the only Biblical people to raise the dead outside of Jesus. As is recorded, Jesus only raised 2 people: the little girl and Lazaras. Peter and Paul are recorded as raising only one person each: Acts 9 and Acts 20.


The Magesterium back then was much more pure and I have no problem with them, generally. It was the 7 churches of Asia that picked which letters and books would be included in the New Testament canon; most written by Paul. Are you referring to the Churches directed by the 7 letters of Paul (Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philipi, Colossae, and Thessalonica)

Or the 7 Churches mentioned by John (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. You said Asia and since Rome is not in Asia, you must mean this list.

But wait, there is Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Crete, and many more.

The Bible does not say that 7 churches of Asia set the Canon. If it does, give me the passage. History points to the Synod of Hippo in 393. Who was at the Council? Since then, I think the idea of an infallible Magesterium is absolutely ludicris. Look at what the Vatican and Catholic church has done throughout history?? Acts 1 shows Biblically that the Apostles fill their ranks and it does not say it ends.

Also Biblical is the concept that a person can be correct in Matters of Faith and Morals but still sin. David is a man after God’s own heart. He committed major sins which are recorded in 2Samuel 11 and 2Samuel 24. In between these sins, David still has the authority to determine how the people are to worship as is written in 1Chronilces 15-16.

The same is shown with Solomon. You point to the backslide of Peter, but this man has 2 letter attributed to him plus is preaching in Acts.Are you saying that EVERYTHING they've done was legitimate?? It has been estimated that the Catholic church is responsible for more Christian deaths than any other one entity or nation. I have nothing against Catholics, but I dislike the Vatican a great deal. Not true. You just pulled that out of your butt “they said it”.

I never said everything they DO is correct, but everything that is decreed by Council or Doctrine is correct.

To say that the sins of the authority disqualifies them means that Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah, Peter, Paul, and all the other writers of the Bible are excluded. The fact is that God uses sinners.

Matthew 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

Jesus tells us that the authority can and will sin, but this does not disqualify their teachings.Notice how this woman sits on seven hills/mountains? Well, Rome is known as the city on seven hills (hills meaning mountains, actually). And Vatican City is in Rome. The cardinals wear red, and the bishops were purple, as depicted of the whore in the prophecy above. She's called Mystery Babylon, and Jesus says, "Come out of her my people so that you do not share in the plagues I shall bring down up on her." (Paraphrased) Very good. Yes the Roman emperors or Nero and Diocletian both persecuted Christians.

You say this is the Roman Church, others say it is the Roman Emperors. You pick and choose your Revelation just as you pick an choose from the book of Acts. Except Acts is written historically and not figuratively.

By the way, where are the martyrs? Under the alter. What is under the alter in the Catholic Churches? The bones of saints.

The book of Revelation is full of references to liturgical worship in heaven but I doubt you participate in liturgical worship.[QUOTE=BrianC]I'm done with Magesterium talk. I've seen what your Magesterium has done in the past when partnered with Rome. You can also read about how the Pope held out from choosing a side during WWII, and had been in talks with Hitler and planned to partner with him if he won the war and ruled the world. Yeah... nice Magesterium you got there, Brian. Who wouldn't want to be a part of that? lol You call the acts mentioned in the above paragraphs morally correct and from infallible people? What major BS that is... The Bible is infallible. Man is not, and that's the end of it. I'm done commenting on the Magesterium../QUOTE]I notice a lack of Bible quote to support your idea of a Bible but no Magesterium.

Your attacks on the Pope are irrelevent, but I will inform you on this one.

For the record, there has only ever been one Papal Encyclical written in German MIT BRENNENDER SORGE as opposed to Latin. It denounces the Nazis. More Catholic priests were killed in Dachau than all other religious combined (you can check this on Wikipedia at least).

What do the Jews believe about Pope Pius XII? Do a search on Rabbi Israel Zolli. While you are at it, do a search for Rabbi David G. Dalin.

[Phillystang]

I take it you are finished wathing DVDs or reading books about Padre Pio and Solanus Casey and are ready to continue. Or you atleast read about them on the internet.

If you have, I will continue this discussion with you. If not, you are not worth my time.

As I said before I read about information you post. You should show the same respect.

I looked them up on wikipedia, are you holding these guys up as apostles?

[Brain_Mach1]

I looked them up on wikipedia, are you holding these guys up as apostles?This shows that mircales do happen to this day.

I am impressed.

Now, between all of the 13 Apostles listed in the Acts of the Apostles, how many people did they raise from the dead in the ~ 20 years the book covers?

[Phillystang]

This shows that mircales do happen to this day.

I am impressed.

Now, between all of the 13 Apostles listed in the Acts of the Apostles, how many people did they raise from the dead in the ~ 20 years the book covers?
At least 2 that we know of for sure, from Peter and Paul. How many people have been called to rise from the dead in the past 2K years following the deaths of the original 12 Apostles? We should have at least 200 if they maintained the pace of what we know for sure Peter and Paul had done.

[Casper]

Are you saying that raising of the dead is the most holy and divine act a Christian can be expected to do, and such a thing should be regularly performed to validate a ministry?

Looking at Acts in another light, there was clearly an issue at hand; how much of the Jewish law was intended to be maintained, and how much could be discarded in the interest of proseletyzing to gentiles? Who decides? Any answer has very far-reaching consequences.

Raising dead people doesn't rally come into play in my mind, from a theological perspective. Especially in an early apocolyptic theology.

[Phillystang]

Are you saying that raising of the dead is the most holy and divine act a Christian can be expected to do, and such a thing should be regularly performed to validate a ministry?

Looking at Acts in another light, there was clearly an issue at hand; how much of the Jewish law was intended to be maintained, and how much could be discarded in the interest of proseletyzing to gentiles? Who decides? Any answer has very far-reaching consequences.

Raising dead people doesn't rally come into play in my mind, from a theological perspective. Especially in an early apocolyptic theology.

We are talking about the apostles abilities and whether the same kind of wonders and miracles are being performed by 'apostles' today, and if in fact there are such 'apostles' still around today. I would argue that while God does do miracles, even through people, that the unique giftings of instant healings and raising the dead are no longer in effect. They were used by God for a special time and purpose.



I am not saying what you mention here
Are you saying that raising of the dead is the most holy and divine act a Christian can be expected to do, and such a thing should be regularly performed to validate a ministry?

[jones4stangs]

I've got some side questions, concerning this Magesterium discussion.

Do the various Protestant denominations consider ministers, preachers, and/or pastors part of a current Magesterium? Do they consider themselves an extension of the Magesterium? They tend to say they are "called" by God. Do they use this "calling" to attach themselves into the Magesterium? How about the ordination of preachers? Is this attached to the Magesterium?

[Casper]

I've got some side questions, conserning this Magesterium discussion.

Do the various Protestant denominations consider ministers, preachers, and/or pastors part of a current Magesterium? Do they consider themselves an extension of the Magesterium? They tend to say they are "called" by God. Do they use this "calling" to attach themselves into the Magesterium? How about the ordination of preachers? Is this attached to the Magesterium?

Some of the Church of Christ people on here would answer with a definite "NO".

[flashstang04]

Some of the Church of Christ people on here would answer with a definite "NO".


Church of Christ...in it's original form, has some very non biblical beliefs..

Saying that pastors are attached to a Magesterium in some way is over complicating it. They may be called but are not associated with any kind of Magesterium, because simply, that is not necessary. While a hierarchy can be biblical, a "Magesterium" requirement is not.

[Phillystang]

I've got some side questions, concerning this Magesterium discussion.

Do the various Protestant denominations consider ministers, preachers, and/or pastors part of a current Magesterium? Do they consider themselves an extension of the Magesterium? They tend to say they are "called" by God. Do they use this "calling" to attach themselves into the Magesterium? How about the ordination of preachers? Is this attached to the Magesterium?

How do you define magesterium?

All (born from above) believers are called by God. The word magesterium doesn't get tossed around much in the circles I fellowship with.

[Brain_Mach1]

At least 2 that we know of for sure, from Peter and Paul. How many people have been called to rise from the dead in the past 2K years following the deaths of the original 12 Apostles? We should have at least 200 if they maintained the pace of what we know for sure Peter and Paul had done.In all the Bible, there are a total of 4 resurections through the hands of people other than Jesus. Obviously God raises the dead, but sometimes through other people. One each through Peter, Paul, Elijah and Elisha.

If resurection is you litmus test, be aware that only 4 people have done so. Not Moses. Does this discredit Moses?

I find it interesting that you insist on seeing miracle on YouTube. This sounds a lot like the comments from the Pharisees but so be it.

Many miracles have been attributed to John Paul II

La Repubblica newspaper quoted Brasilian Cardinal Francesco Marchisano as saying he himself recovered his ability to speak after the Pope touched his throat following an operation that had left his vocal cords paralysed.

Corriere della Sera recounted the tale of a Mexican boy suffering from terminal leukaemia who regained his health after meeting the Pope in May 1990.

The Church investigates miracles very closely and does not pass a judgement on them until years later. They do not want to lead the faithful astray because of false witness.

If resurrections are the litmus test, I have not read RAISED FROM THE DEAD
True Stories of 400 Resurrection Miracles by Fr. Albert J. Hebert but I would think it would be a good source.

So if miracles can be performed through the apostolic successors, what would that mean to you? Would the doubting Pharisee have proof?

[Phillystang]

In all the Bible, there are a total of 4 resurections through the hands of people other than Jesus. Obviously God raises the dead, but sometimes through other people. One each through Peter, Paul, Elijah and Elisha.

If resurection is you litmus test, be aware that only 4 people have done so. Not Moses. Does this discredit Moses?

Moses isn't an apostle though is he?

"and the apostle Moses said..." ;)


I find it interesting that you insist on seeing miracle on YouTube. This sounds a lot like the comments from the Pharisees but so be it.
You're right, I should believe it simply because you said it was so, :rolleyes:

Many miracles have been attributed to John Paul II

La Repubblica newspaper quoted Brasilian Cardinal Francesco Marchisano as saying he himself recovered his ability to speak after the Pope touched his throat following an operation that had left his vocal cords paralysed.

Corriere della Sera recounted the tale of a Mexican boy suffering from terminal leukaemia who regained his health after meeting the Pope in May 1990.

The Church investigates miracles very closely and does not pass a judgement on them until years later. They do not want to lead the faithful astray because of false witness.

If resurrections are the litmus test, I have not read RAISED FROM THE DEAD
True Stories of 400 Resurrection Miracles by Fr. Albert J. Hebert but I would think it would be a good source.

So if miracles can be performed through the apostolic successors, what would that mean to you? Would the doubting Pharisee have proof?

I have no desire to carry this out further, perhaps we define apostle differently

from google

Definitions of apostle on the Web:

* an ardent early supporter of a cause or reform; "an apostle of revolution"
* any important early teacher of Christianity or a Christian missionary to a people
* (New Testament) one of the original 12 disciples chosen by Christ to preach his gospel
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* In Mormonism, an Apostle is a "special witness of the name of Jesus Christ who is sent to teach the principles of salvation to others." In many Latter Day Saint denominations, an Apostle is also a priesthood office of high authority within the church hierarchy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle (Latter Day Saints)

* "one sent." This normally refers to the 12 men chosen by Jesus to be the bearers of his teachings to the world.
www.archmil.org/ourfaith/glossary.asp

* the twelve followers of Christ who were sent to spread the Christian message after his death and resurrection; the place of Judas Iscariot was taken by Matthias; the grace and the authority of the church were believed to have passed directly from Christ through the apostles
www.medievalwriting.50megs.com/churchglossary/glossarya.htm

* a person sent by another; a messenger; envoy. This word is once used as a descriptive designation of Jesus Christ, the Sent of the Father (Hebrews 3:1; John 20:21). ...
www.calvarysbd.com/terms.htm

* Highest office of the Melchizedek Priesthood. One ordained to this office is called to be a special witness of the name of Jesus Christ in all the world, serving in this capacity for life.
www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/glossary.htm

* A person chosen to be a messenger for someone. In the Bible, the word normally refers to one of the twelve men whom Jesus chose to be his special followers and helpers. Paul is also called an apostle.
www.bibleresourcecenter.forministry.com/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=7C1B601B-754C-4070-9F4FE0BE6913D774&method=display

* The first to introduce Christianity to a pagan land, includes the 12 original disciples of Christ, Matthias that replaced Judas, Paul, Barnabas and James the brother of Christ.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/a.html

* Jesus chose twelve apostles to discipline and whose mission it was to go out and preach the gospel. Each apostle had a particular spiritual gift or gifts. They were natural mediums, healers and teachers. See ‘Corinthians’. ...
www.kwest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/A.html

* One of the fivefold ministries of Ephesians 4:11. The Apostle is a foundation-laying ministry (Eph. 2:20) that we see in the New Testament establishing new churches (Paul’s missionary journeys), correcting error by establishing proper order and structure (First Epistle to the Corinthians), and ...
www.allforhisglory.net/ofhoc/terms.html

[Casper]

Philly, was Paul an apostle by your standards?

If so then you endorse some sort of apostolic succession. After all, he never met Jesus, he just saw him in a vision or dream.

[flashstang04]

Philly, was Paul an apostle by your standards?

If so then you endorse some sort of apostolic succession. After all, he never met Jesus, he just saw him in a vision or dream.


I don't think that can be concluded just by reading scripture. While there are a few variations due to translation, Jesus may HAVE very well been there in person. Without knowing for sure, it seems to be a moot point.

[FSON]

If I saw Jesus, do I have earthly church (Catholic) authority?
Didn't David Koresh see Jesus?

[Casper]

I don't think that can be concluded just by reading scripture. While there are a few variations due to translation, Jesus may HAVE very well been there in person. Without knowing for sure, it seems to be a moot point.

I disagree, but it is a moot point in regards to this debate; Paul's apostacy is proof of some kind of succession.

[FSON]

I disagree, but it is a moot point in regards to this debate; Paul's apostacy is proof of some kind of succession.
Some kind of succession, but of what kind?

[Phillystang]

Philly, was Paul an apostle by your standards?

If so then you endorse some sort of apostolic succession. After all, he never met Jesus, he just saw him in a vision or dream.
I disagree with your conclusions, and so do the Scriptures. If it endorses succession, what apostle did Paul succeed? Who voted Paul in?

Galatians 1
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1
1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me...

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Colossians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus

[FSON]

I disagree with your conclusions, and so do the Scriptures. If it endorses succession, what apostle did Paul succeed? Who voted Paul in?

Galatians 1
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1
1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me...

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Colossians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus

So Paul could be anyone including you, Philly.
What does that mean? The Bible is not dead and finished, it can continue to be added to and culled. The Catholic Church has not right to say the Bible is finished. On second thought, maybe the Catholic Church Bible is finished.

[flashstang04]

The Bible is not dead and finished, it can continue to be added to and culled. The Catholic Church has not right to say the Bible is finished. On second thought, maybe the Catholic Church Bible is finished.


It is definitely not dead, but it IS complete and sufficient:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." Rev 22:18

[FSON]

It is definitely not dead, but it IS complete and sufficient:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." Rev 22:18
I think he was refering to Revelations, not the Catholic "Bible".

[FSON]

It is definitely not dead, but it IS complete and sufficient:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." Rev 22:18
And that last part may have been added by Catholics.

[Casper]

I disagree with your conclusions, and so do the Scriptures. If it endorses succession, what apostle did Paul succeed? Who voted Paul in?

Galatians 1
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1
1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me...

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Colossians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus

I see no disagreement.

That Christ was revealed to Paul via revelation is apparent in your quote from Galations. That he was "called to God" as an apostle is clear as well using your other references.

This invalidates any notion that the title of apostle was limited to those who were among the original disciples.

So again, we see apostolic succession in one form. Now, making the leap to Catholic dogma is not easy at this point, it does not by itself disregard the scripture you quoted (so far).

[FSON]

I see no disagreement.

That Christ was revealed to Paul via revelation is apparent in your quote from Galations. That he was "called to God" as an apostle is clear as well using your other references.

This invalidates any notion that the title of apostle was limited to those who were among the original disciples.

So again, we see apostolic succession in one form. Now, making the leap to Catholic dogma is not easy at this point, it does not by itself disregard the scripture you quoted (so far).
I will become a Catholic and hope one day to be voted into the next open position as apostle. The next Pope will either be South American or Chinese, for political purposes.