Another enormous sex-scandal in the... beacon of morality .. in the Netherlands. Instead of adressing trivialities about the interpretation of doctrine and the bible, why don`t catholics address the biggest problem in their history ? Since the bible and the gospels are so vague, ( A big mistake of this superintelligent god) there will always be thousands of different interpretations.
St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, ca. 356 - 359 AD: It cannot be denied that this tearing asunder of the faith has arisen from the defect of poor intelligence, which twists what is read to conform to its opinion, instead of adjusting its opinion to the meaning of what is read.
Look how this early Church father describes 1,200 yrs. earlier the New Age protestant movement and the mistake of individual interpretation.
In the beginning was the bible, and the bible was with God, and the bible was God. This unfortunately is the creed of reprobate protestants, who through pride believe they can interpret the word of God to their own desires. Hopefully God will lift the veil over their hearts.
lolz, he simply used another proof text to explain something, i think sola scriptura believing christians should start questioning their theology, st.peter clearly calls st.paul's letters or epistles, and really "other scriptures" do not at all have to mean "other scriptures like st pauls letters", that is so speculative, st.peter is clearly drawing a parallel between old testament scripture being misinerpreted by jews and doing the same to st. pauls epistles
Scott Hahn has excellent arguments on Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is actually not biblical because the bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The question is which church...answer is Catholic church.
@drdst17 ... Christ did not found a modern corporation through articles of incorporation with a trademarked name. I hope that you can escape nominalism and learn to grasp essences. Read the New Testament; compile all of the attributes of the Church mentioned in the text; then synthesize these attributes into a working whole. Also read broadly, deeply, and objectively from the Church Fathers.
@drdst17.... While names are important and should signify the ultimate realities they are attached to, they can never capture that reality completely. This is why Jesus was given many names in the New Testament. The Church established by Christ was built on the foundation of the Apostles, is marked with holiness, has a mandate to be universal in scope, is fundamentally one, and has both visible and invisible aspects. It is this Church that is now called the Catholic Church. ... continued...
@wbowersox87 "While names are important and should signify the ultimate realities they are attached to, they can never capture that reality completely. This is why Jesus was given many names in the New Testament."
Jesus was not "given many names in the New Testament". Keeping in mind that "many" means "a large indefnitie number" would you care to share with us all the "many names" given to Jesus in the New Testament?
@troysz The Catholic Source Book lists 147 descriptive titles of Christ found in the Bible. Here are several seemingly obvious ones: Alpha and Omega, Bread of life, Christ, Emmanuel, Good shepherd, Holy one, King of kings, Lamb of God, Light of the world, Lord, Messiah, Savior, Second Adam, Son of man, Teacher, Word of God. These 147 descriptive titles, taken together, help to paint a full picture of Christ.
@wbowersox87 BTW (C)atholic is not a title it is a proper noun/name and one that scripture does not give to the church. Also tere are many Catholic traditions not founf in scripture and never taught by either Jesus or the Apostles whom he left to establish the church.
I disagree with the very premise of your blog. Names of people or the church in scripture is very important.
The Bible calls Mary "Mary" not Sally. If names are not important why not call Mary Sally? Why not call Peter Joe?
@troysz I see no sense in arguing with you any longer as I feel like you are making things up out of thin air. You also seem to be advocating Sola Scriptura, a mindless and un-Biblical belief. I recommend reviewing Joel Peter's Twenty One Reasons for Rejecting Sola Scriptura. I hope you follow the truth wherever it leads you, and that your anti-Catholicism doesn't blind you to this truth. Very best.
@wbowersox87"You also seem to be advocating Sola Scriptura, a mindless and un-Biblical belief."
You seem to be advocating "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" which is of satan and un-Biblical belief, as is your Catholic sect. "Contra negantem principia non est disputandum"
I'll take that as your confession that you deny the founding principles of Christian beliefs which are set forth in scripture.
There was no need to confess because that was obvious.
@wbowersox87 "I recommend reviewing Joel Peter's Twenty One Reasons for Rejecting Sola Scriptura. I hope you follow the truth wherever it leads you, and that your anti-Catholicism doesn't blind you to this truth"
I recommend that you read the scriptures and ask Jesus to give you a heart to believe what they say. i hope that God open your heart to believe and to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour. I hope that your anti-Jesus views do not blind you to the truth about him.
@wbowersox87 Why not? because that is not the name given to them in Scripture...that's why!
Even yoiur sect accepts the names given to both people and nations in scripture. You only want to abandon this when it comes to the name of the church since the church is not called the Catholic church nor did it practice Catholic traditions.
If Israel's name is Israel because scripture says so and if Peter's name is Peter because scripture says so then the church's name is not the Catholic church
An Ernest Plea to the Children of Martin Luther: I have asked many, many times for adherents of "Sola Scriptura" to show me, in the Bible, where it itself claims to be the only authority, and none have delivered; "Sola Scriptura" is a false doctrine that has lead to the endless fragmenting of protestantism; As the Bible says "I hate every false way", and "SS" is as false as you can get.
@WorldBibleUnion454 An earnest plea to the children of the Roman Catholic Church: I have asked many, many times for adherents of "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" (Scripture plus Catholicism) to show me, in the Bible, where it claims that the Roman Catholic Church has co authority, and none have delivered; "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" is a false doctrine that has lead to all other denominations; As the Bible says "I hate every false way", and "SAS" is as false as you can get.
Present here before all every scripture that specifically cites the Roman Catholic Church as authoritative.
I will in turn present every scripture that cites scripture as authoritative. (please note that I did not say solely authoritative).
The point here being with all of your sect's ranting about sola scriptura scripture at least mentions itself as authoritative but it does not once mention any Roman Catholic Church NOT ONCE!
1. There is SPECIFIC and EXPLICIT mention of scripture of itself as authoritative
2. There is no mention of any Roman Catholic Church, pope, nun, rosary, priest in the NT church, order of celibacy for church leaders, etc
We must conclude that the according to scripture scripture itself (if not the sole authority) is a legitmate authority while the Roman Catholic sect IS NOT! Again according to scripture!
@troysz --I never said that Scripture was not authoritative, I said it is not the only authority; we have unwritten (oral) authority also. What church are you a member of?
What you did say is clear; you stated that many times you have asked the adherents of " Sola Scriptura" to to show you, in the Bible, where it itself claims to be the only authority
You then state that todate none have delivered upon that request.
You then conclude that "Sola Scriptura" is a false doctrine
@WorldBibleUnion454 I in turn asked you a very specific question to show how hypocritical and deceptive many Catholics are.
I asked you to present scripture that mentions the Catholic church as an authority (as I have asked many). You like all the others have also failed. Your hypocrisy has been exposed. You yourself can’t even provide scripture which cites the Catholic sect as an authority.
Scriptura Addo Catholicus is false and not scriptural.
In my 1st post in response to your so called "earnest plea" in parenthesis I gave the english translation.
I have another request of you.
Could you please list for our edification at least 5 oral traditions which the 1st century church recieved orally from the Apostles but were never written down in the 1st century. Then provide your proof that they came from the Apostles and were practiced by the 1st century church.
@WorldBibleUnion454 It will be very interesting to see if you actually know of any traditions which the Apostles taught the 1st century church exclusively by oral means.
Also would you explain this; if oral transmission is a reliable means of transmitting important information then why did Israel forget an entire portion of the law when the written book was lost (2Chronicles 34)?
Ah yes, the heresy in action.. The individual is supreme. No reference to authority other them. the person. The protestant heresy, all the way back to father Martin Luther has exulted the individual to such a higher degree that the individual person is the decider of what is right or wrong. The arbiter of what is morally right or wrong and Golly Gee we stupid back water Catholics thought that it was god’s job’s description. Aaaa shucks, we had it wrong all these centuries.
I don't understand Sola Scriptura. I find it so contradictory. If Scripture is only the Highest Authority, what about the Words that Christ said to his Apostles before they were ever written down? Technically, the words of Scripture would be a higher word of authority than the Tradition laid down by the Son of God Himself?
Scripture wasn't God breathed, but it was and is inspired. Marks highest authority isnt the bible cuz 1. he doesnt read from the bible he uses a modern perversion and 2. he is calvinist - his authority is john calvin and his institutes, he interprets the bible using calvin and not what the bible says. False teacher, false doctrine, following a heretic. Calvinism is a widespreading disease in todays church.
@TheKJVberean Dude I dont agree fully with Calvinism but do you realize how strong the word heretic is. Please man we are one in Christ, the family of God. Although you dont agree with some points thats fine, but you cannot deny the good work that Mark is doing for Jesus and the hope he offers to so many people. Please save your hatred, its sin and it will disintegrate you, please consider bro (:
Sola Scriptura is complete and utter bunk. A Protestant Heresy. Only the Holy Catholic Church has the authority from Christ to interpret Sacred Scripture, for this Scripture was WRITTEN by Catholics hundreds of years after Christ's death.
Matthew 16:18 - Jesus gave His Church this authority.
@drdst17 "Sola Scriptura is complete and utter bunk."
Sola Addo Catholicus (Scripture plus Catholicism) is complete and utter bunk"
I can give you words from Jesus Himself and the Apostles citing the authority of scrpture. You cannot cite one single word from either Jesus or the Apostles which cites the Roman Catholic church as authoritative,
Israel's, Rome's, Jesus, and the Apostle's names are in scripture. There is no Catholic church in scripture PERIOD!
@troysz Although the word "Catholic" does not appear in Sacred Scripture, the word "Church" does, in Matthew 16:18.
So what is this "Church" Christ spoke of? What is the history of this Church? The Church is the Holy Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of it around A.D. 100. The Catholic Church is centered around the Bishop of Rome, St. Peter's successor. 75% of Christian History centers around it.
You would know this if you studied History, and followed Scripture.
Wow! amzing discovery the word "church" is found in scripture! Stating the obvious does not change the fact that the church in scripture is not once called the Catholic church.
Israel's name is in the Bible, if the church had a name it would be there too!
It is the church which obeys the instruction of the Apostle Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 and standfast and hold to the traditions which the church HAD BEEN taught by the Apostles orally and in writing.
When Paul wrote "traditions which ye have been taught" that is past tense. Since 2 Thess was written about 50-51AD those traditions he spoke of had already been taught the church during the 1st half of the 1st century. con't
@drdst17 cont'd the words "traditions which ye have been taught" specifically refers to traditions from the Apostles taught to the church orally and in writing not future man-made Catholic traditions which came later.
"The Church is the Holy Catholic Church"
You can call this sect what you choose and repeating that will not make it true. The church in scripture is not called the Catholic church so it is not the Catholic church.
@drdst17 You are the product of a very bad philosophy, namely nominalism, which came to popularity in the 14th century. To simplify, nominalism denied the existence of universals. Over the centuries nominalism has been stripped of its intellectualism, and today it has essentially divoreced termonology from underlining realities. Christ established a Church in objective reality. This Church has many attributes (the marks of unity, apostolicity, holiness, and universality, etc) ...continued...
@troysz That's my blog!!! My thoughts, my words. Thank you for the plug. Do I owe you something now? You have proven that you are capable of research in some form. Now, use it objectively and honestly for all areas of study. Also, feel free to read the other entries on the blog.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Hmmm....
"Now, use it objectively and honestly for all areas of study. Also, feel free to read the other entries on the blog."
As one who posts lies regarding what names the New Testament gives Jesus, I think that it you who need to do some objective research.
I am 48. At age 8 I read all of the writings of those your sect calls the early church father, the Didache, and the Catechism of the Catholic church. I read these objectively seeking whether or not the RCC was the church in scripture.
@troysz "At age 8 I read all of the writings of those your sect calls the early church father..."
I absolutely do not believe this for a second. The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers comprise 10 volumes alone. The post-Nicene collection is even larger!
Also, which Catechism did you read? The Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated in 1994. Even if you did read a catechism of some sort (say the Baltimore Catechism, or the catechism from Trent), you need to read it again.
@wbowersox87 "I absolutely do not believe this for a second. The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers comprise 10 volumes alone. The post-Nicene collection is even larger!
To be clear at age 8 I began reading those works. I did finish them by age 9.
I could care less about what you believe. Fools usually judge others by their own abilities or inabilities.
@wbowersox87 "Also, which Catechism did you read?"
At that time I read the "Catechism of the Council of Trent". As an adult I have read the corrections declared by Pope John Paul II on September 8 1997.
"Even if you did read a catechism of some sort (say the Baltimore Catechism, or the catechism from Trent), you need to read it again."
What you need to do is stop offering foolish advice and give me the "many names" of Jesus in the New Testament.
@drdst17 "St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of it around A.D. 100."
Actually in his letter to the Smyrneans 107A.D. Ignatius did not call the church Catholic. Catholic which is always capitalized is a proper noun. Ignatius did not use a proper noun he use the word "katholikos" which is an adjective and means "universal". The word "catholic" (not capitalize) comes from the late latin word "catholicus" and also an adjective and means "universal".
@drdst17 it was at the age of 8 that I 1st read the writings of those whom your sect call the "Early Church Fathers" (including St. Ignatius).
Between the age of 8-10 I also read the Didache and the Catechism of the Catholic church. I will not be as arrogant, foolish, and presumptous as you and assume that you are being a hypocrite in not studying history yourself. However I will say this; When one studies scripture they are studying history. The Bible is full of history. You know this right?
@drdst17 In fact the Bible contains many historical truth that you will not find in secular history. You did know this right? You cannot find in secualr history as much information about Jesus as in scripture. You did know this right? I wonder?
I have been a student of both history and the Bible since the age of eight because was curious as to why there were so many different types of churches. I studied and have been studying ever since. So next time don't be so presumptuous and arrogant.
@drdst17 And stop running from the truth; your sect is not found anywhere in scripture. Your Catholic sect did not exist in the 1st century. It is not the church which Jesus spoke of and it is not the church which the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit founded.
If we follow scripture, thus also the Old Testament, we should stone all prostitutes, yet Jesus teaches something else. Intepretation of the scripture based on love. Jesus is against the simplistic application of sola scriptura.
Psalm 138:2 (King James Version) 2I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
So what do you mean now that you just have the bible and everything will be answered by it. In Luke chapter 4 Man does not live on bread alone but in every word that comes from the mouth of God. Both in old and new testament people were reading scriptures and lishtening to God through His prophets. By your theory means that God cannot say anything further. He is God and if He wants to say something more He has all the right just like you. Don't make God mute by not listening to prophets.
@Thomistica When it comes down to it, theres no difference. Scratch beneath the surface a bit & you find this comes down to circular logic. IF the scriptures were the highest authority, then everyones interpretation of those words are just as valuable as the next persons regardless of contradiction. Roman Catholics are smart enough to realize this & know that sola scriptura is taught no where in scripture. Its only a presupposition. Roman Catholics know that scripture & tradition is necessary.
@Thomistica Then how do you get to the important root of what IS inspired scripture? Tradition is at its very roots which is why the Catholic church recognizes that they go hand in hand. Also, scripture alone does say the pillar & foundation of truth is the church where it could have easily said scripture here. So all in all, who has the ultimate authority on who has the RIGHT interpretation of scripture? Is that person you? If its not you who does? Someone has to have it right?
@catchzz Providence saw to it that on such a paramount matter for faith and morals (what *is* the NT canon) the Fathers did not err. God's will determines all history. Doesn't make the Fathers infallible; all of the Fathers, individually and collectively, erred at other times. God evidently 'allowed' them to err on lesser matters.
I don't trust in the 'infallibility' of tradition generally. I trust that God would/did not let us go astray on such a paramount issue for all Christian theology.
@Thomistica So then you believe each Christian for themselves needs to reinvent the wheel to know for themselves that someone did not err on their part?
@catchzz I don't have any anxiety over the truth of the Creeds, which lay out the essential doctrines of the faith. They are clearly Biblical; they may easily be demonstrated from Scripture. This is eminently trustworthy tradition; *the* standards of doctrinal orthodoxy second only to Scripture itself (again, we don't reject extra-Biblical authority; we just believe that Scripture is primary). This tradition is the safeguard 'lens' through which Scripture should be approached by every Christian.
@catchzz Protestants believe that what the Bible is saying to us re: faith and morals, what we need to know in order to be saved, is not a great mystery. Biblical interpretation, on these fundamental matters at any rate, is not rocket science. There's a reason why all Christian communions (RC/EO/P), despite their differences on 'second-tier' issues, agree on the absolute essentials/fundamentals of the faith, as put forth in the Creeds. We recognize that Scripture plainly teaches these truths.
@Thomistica Scripture doesnt necessarily plainly each everything, the scriptures themselves even admit that some things are hard to understand. But the fact remains that Christ will not confuse and the church is the highest authority over the written word, bc no matter how hard you try and get away from it, there will always be the written word plus someones interpretation of the written word and their bias towards whatever tradition they have known.
@catchzz you "But the fact remains that Christ will not confuse and the church is the highest authority over the written word, bc no matter how hard you try and get away from it, there will always be the written word plus someones interpretation of the written word."
No, this is terribly wrong, God is the Highest AUTHORITY, the scriptures came from His Mouth to the body of Christ- Not the other way around. We are to have complete joy in the Scriptures God Breathed. 1 John 1:4
@khalidsnowden So then you are saying that Jesus lied when He made the statements in John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:12-13; Luke 10:16; and Matthew 16:18-19? If you are saying that the Church teaches error, then that is exactly what you are doing based on these verses.
I just watched this video again and I'm genuinely puzzled by the difference he explains between SolO and SolA Scriptura - I've never heard it explained like that. The definitions I've always heard are that SolA Scriptura says that the HIGHEST authority in matters of the Christian, but that SolO Scriptura says that it is the ONLY authority.
@DarthMambo Ive noticed that too, and with the nature of protestantism the concept of sola scriptura isnt always defined the same way. So therefore I think we need to look at it from the root of the word and say scripture only. We all know that scripture can never be alone, someones own bias & interpretation will always come into play.
@catchzz The definitions given to SolO and SolA don't really matter anyway. If one says that SolA Scriptura means that the Church has *some* authority it is really no different from SolO Scriptura that says Scripture is the only authority.
Since both philosophies hold Scripture to be the *highest* authority it means that the individual's private, fallible interpretation of Scripture will always trump any other authority such as that of the Church, meaning it really has no "authority" at all
"we believe that the bible is the metaphorical supreme court"
Ahh....but here's the problem - someone has to interpret Scripture... Who's interpretation will you trust? What happens when your own interpretation is in disagreement with someone else?
I'm assuming this is part of a longer talk but this clip doesn't explain the common problems with Sola Scriptura - the Bible itself doesn't teach it and how can you actually can say what goes in the Bible without the Bible being your guide?
I encourage all catholics to read Sister Charlottes testimony. She was an ex-nun. Please read it with an open mind and i ask that you pray first that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth.
@kiwichristian2009 Please read Home Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn and read that with an open mind. It brings forth the truth in the RCC which was found accidentally by a very anticatholic protestant ministers.
Good works in amazing ways to bring home his followers.
@catchzz I must admit to you, my friend, i find it hard to take the catholic religion seriously at all. I base this on the clear unbiblical and twisted practices it contains. It is one thing to play the "tradition with a capital "T"" card, but when those "traditions" are in opposition to the Word of God, that is another. The pope claims to be another Christ on earth, and is given the name given in the Bible to God only. This does, i admit, harden my heart a lot.
@kiwichristian2009 Actually you are basing your "facts" on pure make belief. The pope doesnt claim to be Christ on earth, you fall for another whopper. Your response only leads me to believe you have a very closed mind & dont consider whats out there other than what you want to believe. The RCC is the most biblical church out there. Years of study I have done myself has proven this to me each more with every passing day. Sorry, but I cant take you seriously when you fall for anticathoic lies.
@catchzz The title "Vicar of Christ" means one serving as a substitute or agent; According to the Bible, the Holy Spirit is the "substitute" or "agent" of Christ, not any man."Sorry, but I cant take you seriously when you fall for anticathoic lies." Thats fine, my friend. It makes no difference to you whether you believe me or not, that is not my job as a Christian. You call me and my comments anti-catholic, i call the roman catholic "church" anti-Christian.
@catchzz Kiwi wrote earlier that the Vatican sits on one of the 7 hills of Rome. Amazing that, don't you think considering that he is the first ever to discover that fact despite everyone else knowing that the Vatican isn't on the 7 hills. He knows something that everyone doesn't. I wonder if he has written to the National Geographic with this info explaining this new found evidence :)
.
I believe that it is safe to take anything he says with a pinch of salt.
Without sola scriptura we have no certain, absolute truth by which we can defend our faith. No absolute to judge false doctrine. No confidence in any salvation. If the Bible isn't the authority, we have nothing.
@johnthreesixteen316 Well, the Bible gives way to the Church, not vice versa. Its a shame that catholic do not hold the Bible up to such a high regard as mary and other dead people.
@johnthreesixteen316 (1) ""Without sola scriptura we have no certain, absolute truth by which we can defend our faith""
.
You don't know what Sola Scriptura is. So how can you be certain about what you write? SS makes the reader the sole infallible rule of faith not Scripture because YOU decide what Scripture says. If you cannot show SS clearly in Scripture then you have to deduce that Scripture means that.
@johnthreesixteen316 (1)" Without sola scriptura we have no certain, absolute truth by which we can defend our faith"
.
You don't know what SS is. So how can you be certain of what you write? In fact what you have wrote proves that Scripture is not the sole infallible rule of faith. You are the sole infallible rule of faith for you and not Scripture because you interpret Scripture and your interpretation is infallible.
God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today...
@kiwichristian2009 ...A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
@kiwichristian2009 I agree. The Roman catholic church says they have the authority, not the Bible. When you ask them where they get the authority, they say from the Bible! This is circle reasoning. Evolutionists use the same reasoning when dating fossils.
@johnthreesixteen316 When the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. ...
@kiwichristian2009 ...Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.
the early church as described in the NT did the following: shared all things in common, relationships, support missionaries/ministers, teaching & preaching, praying, worshiping, reading of scripture, evangelism, fostering spiritual gifts. No where does the NT dictate fancy buildings, robes, repetitive prayer, a priesthood, Mary worship, sectarianism, or any order of service, etc.. all these are man made traditions added on.
@kiwichristian2009 Exactly friend! As a matter of fact, Revelation 17 describes those fancy robes......Revelation 17:4 "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication."
@johnthreesixteen316 Yes. the catholic church is clearly revealed by God in His Word. The re-sacrificing mass, penance, the wealth, the position of rome/vatican on 7 hills, rosary prayers, forbidding marriage, forbidding certain foodsm etc. God is very clever. He knew what was going to happen. Praise God that you and I know the truth. God gave us the Bible, Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
@TheManGadoosh No, i do not intend to reply to all your questoins, because all you want is to argue and fight, so yes, you can take my silence as ignoring you.
@kiwichristian2009 So you won't be interjecting between me and Jonny boy? Or will you throw in your two pence worth just to try and poison the well every now and then?.
.
By not answering this, I will take that as yes, you will not be interjecting/disturbing this debate. Thank you
Vatican Hill is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the EAST side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the WEST. Go educate yourself before you decide to type anything else.Please, its embarrassing. You two remind of Richard Dawkins. He has a really bad habit of not doing any research before he decides to type also. And that is one of the main reasons he always looks like an ass.
Cardinal Newman, in his book, "The Development of the Christian Religion," admits that ... "Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin..." (Page 359). “Through some crack or other in the temple of God, the smoke of Satan has entered .” — Pope Paul VI, 1972
@kiwichristian2009 (1)Since you believe that YOUR BRAND of Christianity is orthodoxy then it should be reasonable for you to show your brand of Christianity after the apostlic era.
. If you cannot show me your brand of Christianity after the 1st century then you get the picture i.e. the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's Church, the bride of Christ became an adultress.
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. The Bible doesn't mention any brand. John 3:16..."For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That says it all. No need for catechisms, the rosary, works, scapulars, interceding apparitions, praying to the dead, apparition worship, the eucharist, purgatory, sacraments, co-redeemers, co-mediators etc. Christ's death on the cross is the only way. Simplicity.
@johnthreesixteen316 Ok, so Jesus NEVER established a Church on earth that the gates of hell could not prevail against? I want to know how your position on this matter (Regardless of who or what this Church is)
.
By the way, Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. By saying that Jesus used Scripture does not prove your point. Satan used Scripture also, so using your logic that would mean that Scripture is the rule of faith for him also.
@TheManGadoosh My friend.....the Bible implies sola scriptura in many places. All you and I need for our salvation is contained within its pages. Roman catholic doctrines which are not contained within scripture are not needed to save us. Christ's death on the cross finished to job 2000 years ago.
@johnthreesixteen316 The doctrine of Sola Scriptura states that the doctrines neccessary for salvation are clear enough for even the unlearned to find. So if SS is NOT EXPLICIT, then it isn't clear enough for everyone to find and thus refuted.
.
And you would conclude that the bible being the sole rule infallible rule of faith would be CLEARLY shown in the bible if it was neccessary, would you not? But according to you it isn't. Thanks for that.
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. It is clear in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:15,16.....”And that from A CHILD THOU HAS KNOWN the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
@johnthreesixteen316 (1)You are contradicting yourself now. You wrote " The Bible implies SS" If something is implied then it is NOT EXPLICIT i.e. CLEAR.
.
You are falling over yourself.
.
2Tim 3:16 does not say that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. It is profitable not SOLELY SUFFICENT. And by the way, the Sciptures Timothy knew was the OT not the New. So using your logic, the OT is the sole rule of faith and not the New.
@TheManGadoosh Does the Bible explicitly or specifically mention your name or my name as being saved? No it doesn't, but it is implied. The word Trinity isn't in the Bible either, but it too is implied.
@johnthreesixteen316 "Does the Bible explicitly or specifically mention your name? No it doesn't, but it is implied. The word Trinity isn't in the Bible either, but it too is implied"
.
Then bang goes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not explicit within the pages of Scripture then it is refuted. It is obvious that you don't have a clue about SS and that is even more frightening because you believe in a dcotrine of which you have no clue
@johnthreesixteen316 Also what did Christ use to rebuke Satan? Scripture. "It is written" Catholics claim IT assembled the Bible in 390 ( i think ). This is a lie.326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
@kiwichristian2009 You are taking one specific circumstance and trying to apply it to all circumstances.
Christ followed the traditions of his fathers, and encouraged his followers to do so. Christ relied on the Old Testament and encouraged his followers to do the same. Christ held up the behavior of ordinary men as an example to follow. He told parables to bring Truths to light to His followers. He did not teach by Scripture alone.
@TheManGadoosh Hear lies the problem. Christians use the Bible to judge the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, whereas the Roman Catholics use the church to judge the Bible. Somebody has got this backwards. ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”)
@johnthreesixteen316 "Christians use the Bible to judge the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, " Yes, not the catholic people, but the teachings.
@johnthreesixteen316 (2) Q: If Paul said to the Thessalonians that they were to "Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by word or by letter"
.
Was it just the letter that was inspired or was the spoken word also?
.
If both were inspired, could the letter (Scripture) be corrupted over time?
Or would that remain un corrupted?
If it could not, can you explain why it could not?
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. I don't think God is stupid enough to allow His Word to be corrupted over time. I believe you and I and everyone on this planet has access to the truth. If we don't then God can't judge us. If there is no absolute measuring stick then nobody knows who is right or wrong anywhere or at any time. So, who or what is the measuring stick? The RCC or the Word of God contained in scripture?
@johnthreesixteen316 (2) Thus Scripture is subjective and the sole reason why we have 30,000 + denominations all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
.
What SS does is render the Holy Spirit the author of confusion. How can two people read from the same book and come to two different conclusions and both claiming to be led by the HS? It is not possible.
@johnthreesixteen316 (1) Cont.. If your interpretation is not infallible then who in their right mind would want to listen to it because that would mean that it is fallible and riddled with error. And who wants to listen to an intepretation that is riddled with error?
.
So are you the infallible intepreter of Scripture or not? Please enlighten us oh Mr Sola Scriptura
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. I find it interesting how Roman Catholics ( I used to be one many years ago) don't believe the Bible is the authority, yet they keep quoting it. Well, don't quote it anymore. Stop using it if it isn't authoritative. Don't mention petros or Petra. Don't mention bread and wine, body and blood. It could all be fables. Foolishness indeed.
@johnthreesixteen316 You are mistaken and, furthermore, have misrepresented the RC position. Just because you used to be a RC doesn't mean you knew your faith well or accurately. I find many RC's don't.
The Bible IS an authoritative document. Read the Catechism, particularly paragraph #'s 105-108.
Read it; you'll be surprised at what you didn't know and how far from truth the anti-Catholic drivel truly is.
@hiswife2002 Hello friend. I was being sacrastic when I said the Bible wasn't authoritative. Besides, I am very familiar with the Roman Catholic faith. It certainly isn't the Gospel taught by Christ.
@johnthreesixteen316 (3) And the fact that we don't see SS anywhere being practised within the Church, means that either SS was not taught by the apostles or if it was, then the gates of hell prevailed aginst Christ's Church. Because the Church taught doctrines which YOU SAY are heretical. You cannot have it both ways.
.
And the fact that you will not look at this logically from a historical point of view is scary. Christ created a Church, simple!
Through infant baptism, keeping sacraments, church membership, going to mass, praying to Mary, and confession (just to mention a few), the Catholic church has developed a system of salvation through WORKS. God's word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works". "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)
@kiwichristian2009 (1) If you cannot show me your brand of Christianity after the 1st century then you get the picture i.e. the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's Church, the bride of Christ became an adultress. You get the picture?
.
You cannot show ONE Church father who arrived at (YOUR BRAND) of orthodoxy from going by the bible alone. Why is that?
@TheManGadoosh The difference between you and me is that you think that Christs' church is the rcc, and i believe based on history and the Bible that it is not. So no, the gates of hell did NOT prevail against Christs' church. The roman catholic "church" is NOT Christ's church. If anything, it is clearly anti-Christian.
@kiwichristian2009 I agree 100 percent! So many people try to put a label on our relationship with the Saviour. You can't. The true church doesn't have a roof.
@kiwichristian2009 (1) If you believe that it is based on "history and the bible" then it is obvious that you did not care to read what I wrote. LET ME MAKE IT CLEARER FOR YOU SO AS YOU DON'T GET CONFUSED...
.
(A) YOU BELIEVE that the Bible objectively teaches YOUR BRAND of the Christian faith. DO YOU NOT?
.
(B) YOU BELIEVE that your brand of the Christian faith is Christian orthodoxy. DO YOU NOT?
@kiwichristian2009 I asked you before and you refused to answer. If you are using HISTORY then we should be able to see your Church within it. If you cannot then the gates of hell prevailed because all that there ever was was Catholics and Gnostics. So are we to believe that the Gnostics are the true Christians? The faith of Gnosticism is the true Church?
.
If your claim is TRUE then show me your Church within the 1st 500yrs. If you cannot then the gates of hell prevailed. SO PLEASE SHOW ME
@kiwichristian2009 Forgive me, I was replying to your comment made three days ago. I thought it was familiar :) It was the first one I noticed when I came on. Strange things happen when you have a six month old who thinks that 5 hrs sleep a night is good fun. You sometimes jump the gun. Again, my apologies.
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
@kiwichristian2009 So then why did he send the lepers to the priests at the Temple? (Mark 1: 43-44, Lk 17:14). Why did He tell people to obey the priests of the Temple? (Matt 23:3) Jesus recognized religious authority. He also recognized that there are sinners within religion and we should follow His actions, not those of sinners, even be they religious leaders.
@kiwichristian2009 What a comment! "Never in the bible does Jesus preach a religion"
Jesus preached a truth, ONE truth. A truth that cannot be twisted into denominations all being correct in teaching conflicting truths. Jesus was the greatest teacher of all. He didnt teach denominations, but he did say that the CHURCH is the pillar & foundation of truth. The church teaches what Christ taught. He also taught that those that dont listen to the church should be treated as a tax collector.
@catchzz Heres the problem. I consider there to be ONE Christianity. I do not consider the rcc, pentecostals, mormons, jw's, methodists, baptists, anglicans as "Christians" or "denominations". There is only one Christianity, and that is the one Jesus preached, which was a relationship with Him. "come to me", "I am the way...". I am not trying to be offensive, my friend. Honestly.
@kiwichristian2009 Im sure you arent trying to be offensive but at the same time I am trying to show you how what you describe doesnt jive w/ scripture. Where did Jesus direct people to go when looking for ONE truth of Christianity? The answer to that ? lies in Matt 18:15-18. So when a Christian has to find truth in the CHURCH, there must be a visible church that holds the ONE teaching Jesus gave. Individual Christians all have different ideas on what the truth is. They are not all correct.
@kiwichristian2009 You can certainly consider Christianity to be one, and indeed, we share a common baptism and there is infinitely more that unites us than divides us. However, a look around the world shows that Christianity is not one - opinion differs greatly even in the very matter of salvation and we do not all eat from the same table. Indeed we must affirm what is common, but we cannot ignore the differences.
@kiwichristian2009 There's one Christ, sure, but many different interpretations of who he is and what he taught. For example, would you consider Arians to be Christians? Nestorians? Mormons? Jehovah Witnesses?
@DarthMambo Exactly. But only ONE is correct. The Bible clearly describes Jesus and His attributes and sayings. Yet mormons, jw's and catholics twist them
@kiwichristian2009 Well, it can't be *that* obvious, otherwise you'd expect to find perfect uniformity in the Protestant world. The thing is, you don't. Instead you find disagreement upon virtually every doctrine: effect of baptism, role of faith in salvation, availability of charismatic gifts, role of women in ministry, ...
And what has been the cause of the constant division and splintering of congregations? The doctrine of....Sola Scriptura
@DarthMambo You just don't get it. I don't think you ever will. There are no "Christian" denominations. You are either a Christian or are not. Baptists, Presb., Anglican, Catholicism, etc. all disagree on the Bible, so how can they be Christian? Period.The true church isn't catholic or protestant. It doesn't have a mailing address or a zip code. It is the body of believers in Jesus Christ the world over. Christ has written their names in the book of life. Christ knows who His friends are.
@kiwichristian2009 But you just identified groups that misrepresent Jesus and what he taught (RC, Mormon, JW), so there clearly must be another group who authentically present Jesus. So who are these people and how can we tell the frauds from the real deal? Who can we go to for the correct interpretation of Scripture?
I'm also interested in your response to my "alcohol problems" :)
@kiwichristian2009 Quick question Kiwi: If you say that there are no denominations. Then can the Christian Church (Fact: Christ esteblished a Church) Can these Christians have diametrically opposing doctrine?
.
Or do they share the same doctrine e.g. "One Lord, One faith, One baptism"? If they do, then what you would be saying is that there is only one Church because they share the same doctrine.
.
Don't want to fight here, but I am genuinely curious.
@DarthMambo DarthMambo, no matter the amount of truth you speak to kiwichristian, it doesnt get through the thick skull. Kiwichristian is just another one of those that we must continue to pray for that the Holy Spirit guides them out of bigotry and welcomed home.
@catchzz All I'm looking for are some answers. He said the Bible condemns alcohol outright - I presented him with eight Scriptural problems with that. If he has the truth it shouldn't be hard to refute.
He's said that some twist who Jesus is which implies that there is a group who doesn't. I'd like to know who these people are and how he identifies them. If he has the truth this shouldn't be hard to demonstrate.
@DarthMambo You do deserve answers bc if a person is going to make an outlandish claim then they need to be able to back it up. Im afraid though as with most that are anticatholic/anti-truth you wont get any answers. Typical tactics of turning the tide will occur, the spouting of childish name calling will be included in the response, you just watch :)
@kiwichristian2009 (2) Everything goes through Christ because He is the only mediator. If I pray for you I go through Christ. If I ask Mary or any of the saints who are alive in Christ to pray for me, then they do so through Christ, the ONLY mediator
.
If I ask you to pray for me, hopefully you would do so by going through Christ. This shows that I have asked you to mediate for me. Whats wrong with me asking you to pray for me if Christ is the ONLY mediator?
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. People confuse the Roman catholic church with the Body of Christ. The 2 are not the same. There is a very good reason it is called 'Roman'.
@TheManGadoosh The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
@johnthreesixteen316 Did Jesus have a "relationship" with the Temple? With the priests? Was there not an address to where Christ worshipped? Christ exemplified BOTH obedience to ecclesiastical authority AND a healthy personal relationship with God. Not one OR the other. It is this taking of a part of Truth and banning the fullness of Truth that divides Christianity.
@hiswife2002 Hello friend. What makes us Christians is our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. This is the fundamental common ground all Christians share. Nobody has to be a member of any organized religion to be Christian. Nor does being a member of any organized 'Christian' religion automatically mean you are a Christian. Christ searches the heart. He knows who His true believers are.
Another enormous sex-scandal in the... beacon of morality .. in the Netherlands. Instead of adressing trivialities about the interpretation of doctrine and the bible, why don`t catholics address the biggest problem in their history ? Since the bible and the gospels are so vague, ( A big mistake of this superintelligent god) there will always be thousands of different interpretations.
ndzoko 1 month ago
St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, ca. 356 - 359 AD: It cannot be denied that this tearing asunder of the faith has arisen from the defect of poor intelligence, which twists what is read to conform to its opinion, instead of adjusting its opinion to the meaning of what is read.
Look how this early Church father describes 1,200 yrs. earlier the New Age protestant movement and the mistake of individual interpretation.
Catholic710 1 month ago
In the beginning was the bible, and the bible was with God, and the bible was God. This unfortunately is the creed of reprobate protestants, who through pride believe they can interpret the word of God to their own desires. Hopefully God will lift the veil over their hearts.
Jews deny Christ's divinity Protestants deny Christ's doctrine
Satan and his demons believe Jesus is the son of the Living God, but where are they? Those with eyes hopefully will see that faith alone is absurd!
Catholic710 1 month ago
lolz, he simply used another proof text to explain something, i think sola scriptura believing christians should start questioning their theology, st.peter clearly calls st.paul's letters or epistles, and really "other scriptures" do not at all have to mean "other scriptures like st pauls letters", that is so speculative, st.peter is clearly drawing a parallel between old testament scripture being misinerpreted by jews and doing the same to st. pauls epistles
paulomi123 3 months ago
Scott Hahn has excellent arguments on Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is actually not biblical because the bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The question is which church...answer is Catholic church.
imbonnie 3 months ago in playlist More videos from mhcseattle
@drdst17 ... Christ did not found a modern corporation through articles of incorporation with a trademarked name. I hope that you can escape nominalism and learn to grasp essences. Read the New Testament; compile all of the attributes of the Church mentioned in the text; then synthesize these attributes into a working whole. Also read broadly, deeply, and objectively from the Church Fathers.
wbowersox87 5 months ago
@drdst17.... While names are important and should signify the ultimate realities they are attached to, they can never capture that reality completely. This is why Jesus was given many names in the New Testament. The Church established by Christ was built on the foundation of the Apostles, is marked with holiness, has a mandate to be universal in scope, is fundamentally one, and has both visible and invisible aspects. It is this Church that is now called the Catholic Church. ... continued...
wbowersox87 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 "While names are important and should signify the ultimate realities they are attached to, they can never capture that reality completely. This is why Jesus was given many names in the New Testament."
Jesus was not "given many names in the New Testament". Keeping in mind that "many" means "a large indefnitie number" would you care to share with us all the "many names" given to Jesus in the New Testament?
troysz 5 months ago
@troysz The Catholic Source Book lists 147 descriptive titles of Christ found in the Bible. Here are several seemingly obvious ones: Alpha and Omega, Bread of life, Christ, Emmanuel, Good shepherd, Holy one, King of kings, Lamb of God, Light of the world, Lord, Messiah, Savior, Second Adam, Son of man, Teacher, Word of God. These 147 descriptive titles, taken together, help to paint a full picture of Christ.
wbowersox87 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 "The Catholic Source Book lists 147 descriptive titles of Christ"
A title is not a name. A kings titile is of course "king" but his name is for instance "George". So king George's name is not king it is George.
So again you claim that the New Testament gives "many names" not titles for Jesus.
What are they?
troysz 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 BTW (C)atholic is not a title it is a proper noun/name and one that scripture does not give to the church. Also tere are many Catholic traditions not founf in scripture and never taught by either Jesus or the Apostles whom he left to establish the church.
I disagree with the very premise of your blog. Names of people or the church in scripture is very important.
The Bible calls Mary "Mary" not Sally. If names are not important why not call Mary Sally? Why not call Peter Joe?
troysz 5 months ago
@troysz I see no sense in arguing with you any longer as I feel like you are making things up out of thin air. You also seem to be advocating Sola Scriptura, a mindless and un-Biblical belief. I recommend reviewing Joel Peter's Twenty One Reasons for Rejecting Sola Scriptura. I hope you follow the truth wherever it leads you, and that your anti-Catholicism doesn't blind you to this truth. Very best.
Contra negantem principia non est disputandum
wbowersox87 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 " I see no sense in arguing with you any longer as I feel like you are making things up out of thin air."
1. You can't successfully argue scripture with me because you obvioulsy are not qualified.
2.The only one"making things up out of thin air", is you ie.,” This is why Jesus was given many names in the New Testament.”
troysz 5 months ago
@wbowersox87"You also seem to be advocating Sola Scriptura, a mindless and un-Biblical belief."
You seem to be advocating "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" which is of satan and un-Biblical belief, as is your Catholic sect. "Contra negantem principia non est disputandum"
I'll take that as your confession that you deny the founding principles of Christian beliefs which are set forth in scripture.
There was no need to confess because that was obvious.
troysz 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 "I recommend reviewing Joel Peter's Twenty One Reasons for Rejecting Sola Scriptura. I hope you follow the truth wherever it leads you, and that your anti-Catholicism doesn't blind you to this truth"
I recommend that you read the scriptures and ask Jesus to give you a heart to believe what they say. i hope that God open your heart to believe and to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour. I hope that your anti-Jesus views do not blind you to the truth about him.
troysz 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 Why not? because that is not the name given to them in Scripture...that's why!
Even yoiur sect accepts the names given to both people and nations in scripture. You only want to abandon this when it comes to the name of the church since the church is not called the Catholic church nor did it practice Catholic traditions.
If Israel's name is Israel because scripture says so and if Peter's name is Peter because scripture says so then the church's name is not the Catholic church
troysz 5 months ago
Why are people so Angry, Love dont devide.
trevor8930 6 months ago
This guy = Fail
Silverfoxxee 6 months ago
An Ernest Plea to the Children of Martin Luther: I have asked many, many times for adherents of "Sola Scriptura" to show me, in the Bible, where it itself claims to be the only authority, and none have delivered; "Sola Scriptura" is a false doctrine that has lead to the endless fragmenting of protestantism; As the Bible says "I hate every false way", and "SS" is as false as you can get.
WorldBibleUnion454 6 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 An earnest plea to the children of the Roman Catholic Church: I have asked many, many times for adherents of "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" (Scripture plus Catholicism) to show me, in the Bible, where it claims that the Roman Catholic Church has co authority, and none have delivered; "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" is a false doctrine that has lead to all other denominations; As the Bible says "I hate every false way", and "SAS" is as false as you can get.
troysz 6 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454
Present here before all every scripture that specifically cites the Roman Catholic Church as authoritative.
I will in turn present every scripture that cites scripture as authoritative. (please note that I did not say solely authoritative).
The point here being with all of your sect's ranting about sola scriptura scripture at least mentions itself as authoritative but it does not once mention any Roman Catholic Church NOT ONCE!
troysz 6 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 Therefore since
1. There is SPECIFIC and EXPLICIT mention of scripture of itself as authoritative
2. There is no mention of any Roman Catholic Church, pope, nun, rosary, priest in the NT church, order of celibacy for church leaders, etc
We must conclude that the according to scripture scripture itself (if not the sole authority) is a legitmate authority while the Roman Catholic sect IS NOT! Again according to scripture!
troysz 6 months ago
@troysz --I never said that Scripture was not authoritative, I said it is not the only authority; we have unwritten (oral) authority also. What church are you a member of?
WorldBibleUnion454 6 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 " --I never said that Scripture was not authoritative"
As you very well know I never said that you did.
What you did say is clear; you stated that many times you have asked the adherents of " Sola Scriptura" to to show you, in the Bible, where it itself claims to be the only authority
You then state that todate none have delivered upon that request.
You then conclude that "Sola Scriptura" is a false doctrine
troysz 6 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 I in turn asked you a very specific question to show how hypocritical and deceptive many Catholics are.
I asked you to present scripture that mentions the Catholic church as an authority (as I have asked many). You like all the others have also failed. Your hypocrisy has been exposed. You yourself can’t even provide scripture which cites the Catholic sect as an authority.
Scriptura Addo Catholicus is false and not scriptural.
troysz 6 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 I am yet waiting for scripture that cites the Catholic sect as an authority along with itself.
Otherwise you must concede that "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" is a false doctrine.
troysz 6 months ago
@troysz --"Scriptura Addo Catholicus" is what in english?
WorldBibleUnion454 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WorldBibleUnion454 "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" is what in english?"
In my 1st post in response to your so called "earnest plea" in parenthesis I gave the english translation.
I have another request of you.
Could you please list for our edification at least 5 oral traditions which the 1st century church recieved orally from the Apostles but were never written down in the 1st century. Then provide your proof that they came from the Apostles and were practiced by the 1st century church.
troysz 6 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 It will be very interesting to see if you actually know of any traditions which the Apostles taught the 1st century church exclusively by oral means.
Also would you explain this; if oral transmission is a reliable means of transmitting important information then why did Israel forget an entire portion of the law when the written book was lost (2Chronicles 34)?
troysz 6 months ago
Isn't it ironic that the title of this video is sola scriptura but behind Mark, we see thewords: Doctrine. What Christians Should Believe.
a2j93 9 months ago
Ah yes, the heresy in action.. The individual is supreme. No reference to authority other them. the person. The protestant heresy, all the way back to father Martin Luther has exulted the individual to such a higher degree that the individual person is the decider of what is right or wrong. The arbiter of what is morally right or wrong and Golly Gee we stupid back water Catholics thought that it was god’s job’s description. Aaaa shucks, we had it wrong all these centuries.
vitolucabratsi 10 months ago
I don't understand Sola Scriptura. I find it so contradictory. If Scripture is only the Highest Authority, what about the Words that Christ said to his Apostles before they were ever written down? Technically, the words of Scripture would be a higher word of authority than the Tradition laid down by the Son of God Himself?
equitemcroce 11 months ago
@equitemcroce ---Sola Scriptura cant even be supported by the bible itself; Ironic?
KnowTheBible559 11 months ago
Scripture wasn't God breathed, but it was and is inspired. Marks highest authority isnt the bible cuz 1. he doesnt read from the bible he uses a modern perversion and 2. he is calvinist - his authority is john calvin and his institutes, he interprets the bible using calvin and not what the bible says. False teacher, false doctrine, following a heretic. Calvinism is a widespreading disease in todays church.
TheKJVberean 1 year ago
@TheKJVberean Dude I dont agree fully with Calvinism but do you realize how strong the word heretic is. Please man we are one in Christ, the family of God. Although you dont agree with some points thats fine, but you cannot deny the good work that Mark is doing for Jesus and the hope he offers to so many people. Please save your hatred, its sin and it will disintegrate you, please consider bro (:
JPBuysjr 11 months ago
Sola Scriptura is complete and utter bunk. A Protestant Heresy. Only the Holy Catholic Church has the authority from Christ to interpret Sacred Scripture, for this Scripture was WRITTEN by Catholics hundreds of years after Christ's death.
Matthew 16:18 - Jesus gave His Church this authority.
drdst17 1 year ago 2
@drdst17 "Sola Scriptura is complete and utter bunk."
Sola Addo Catholicus (Scripture plus Catholicism) is complete and utter bunk"
I can give you words from Jesus Himself and the Apostles citing the authority of scrpture. You cannot cite one single word from either Jesus or the Apostles which cites the Roman Catholic church as authoritative,
Israel's, Rome's, Jesus, and the Apostle's names are in scripture. There is no Catholic church in scripture PERIOD!
troysz 6 months ago
@troysz Although the word "Catholic" does not appear in Sacred Scripture, the word "Church" does, in Matthew 16:18.
So what is this "Church" Christ spoke of? What is the history of this Church? The Church is the Holy Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of it around A.D. 100. The Catholic Church is centered around the Bishop of Rome, St. Peter's successor. 75% of Christian History centers around it.
You would know this if you studied History, and followed Scripture.
drdst17 6 months ago
@drdst17 "Although the word "Catholic" does not appear in Sacred Scripture"
The reason the church in scripture is not called the Catholic church is because it is not the Catholic church.
"the word "Church" does, in Matthew 16:18"
Wow! amzing discovery the word "church" is found in scripture! Stating the obvious does not change the fact that the church in scripture is not once called the Catholic church.
Israel's name is in the Bible, if the church had a name it would be there too!
troysz 6 months ago
@drdst17 "what is this "Church" Christ spoke of?"
It is the church which obeys the instruction of the Apostle Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 and standfast and hold to the traditions which the church HAD BEEN taught by the Apostles orally and in writing.
When Paul wrote "traditions which ye have been taught" that is past tense. Since 2 Thess was written about 50-51AD those traditions he spoke of had already been taught the church during the 1st half of the 1st century. con't
troysz 6 months ago
@drdst17 cont'd the words "traditions which ye have been taught" specifically refers to traditions from the Apostles taught to the church orally and in writing not future man-made Catholic traditions which came later.
"The Church is the Holy Catholic Church"
You can call this sect what you choose and repeating that will not make it true. The church in scripture is not called the Catholic church so it is not the Catholic church.
troysz 6 months ago
@drdst17 You are the product of a very bad philosophy, namely nominalism, which came to popularity in the 14th century. To simplify, nominalism denied the existence of universals. Over the centuries nominalism has been stripped of its intellectualism, and today it has essentially divoreced termonology from underlining realities. Christ established a Church in objective reality. This Church has many attributes (the marks of unity, apostolicity, holiness, and universality, etc) ...continued...
wbowersox87 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 "You are the product of a very bad philosophy, namely nominalism, which came to popularity in the 14th century"
You should try forming thoughts of your own rather than plagarizing those of others.
The last 3 posts from you which where cut and pasted from "The Treasury of Catholic Wisdom" bring to mind something that the Apostles Paul wrote,
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
troysz 5 months ago
@troysz That's my blog!!! My thoughts, my words. Thank you for the plug. Do I owe you something now? You have proven that you are capable of research in some form. Now, use it objectively and honestly for all areas of study. Also, feel free to read the other entries on the blog.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Hmmm....
wbowersox87 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wbowersox87 "That's my blog!!! My thoughts, my words. Thank you for the plug. Do I owe you something now?"
That means that you are the originator of the lie that "Jesus was given many names in the New Testament."
and you have yet to provide the many names that the New Testament gives Jesus.
You did read that part of my post did you not?
Or perhaps you just forgot to provide them.
troysz 5 months ago
"Now, use it objectively and honestly for all areas of study. Also, feel free to read the other entries on the blog."
As one who posts lies regarding what names the New Testament gives Jesus, I think that it you who need to do some objective research.
I am 48. At age 8 I read all of the writings of those your sect calls the early church father, the Didache, and the Catechism of the Catholic church. I read these objectively seeking whether or not the RCC was the church in scripture.
troysz 5 months ago
@troysz "At age 8 I read all of the writings of those your sect calls the early church father..."
I absolutely do not believe this for a second. The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers comprise 10 volumes alone. The post-Nicene collection is even larger!
Also, which Catechism did you read? The Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated in 1994. Even if you did read a catechism of some sort (say the Baltimore Catechism, or the catechism from Trent), you need to read it again.
wbowersox87 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 "I absolutely do not believe this for a second. The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers comprise 10 volumes alone. The post-Nicene collection is even larger!
To be clear at age 8 I began reading those works. I did finish them by age 9.
I could care less about what you believe. Fools usually judge others by their own abilities or inabilities.
troysz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wbowersox87 "Also, which Catechism did you read?"
At that time I read the "Catechism of the Council of Trent". As an adult I have read the corrections declared by Pope John Paul II on September 8 1997.
"Even if you did read a catechism of some sort (say the Baltimore Catechism, or the catechism from Trent), you need to read it again."
What you need to do is stop offering foolish advice and give me the "many names" of Jesus in the New Testament.
troysz 5 months ago
@wbowersox87 I would not use a blog containing false claims regarding "the New Testament giving Jesus many names" for "all areas of study".
I will use it to demonstrate to others how true it is when the scripture says;
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Amen!
troysz 5 months ago
@drdst17 "St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of it around A.D. 100."
Actually in his letter to the Smyrneans 107A.D. Ignatius did not call the church Catholic. Catholic which is always capitalized is a proper noun. Ignatius did not use a proper noun he use the word "katholikos" which is an adjective and means "universal". The word "catholic" (not capitalize) comes from the late latin word "catholicus" and also an adjective and means "universal".
troysz 6 months ago
@drdst17 The proper noun "Catholic" does not mean "universal and anyone who says it does is ignorant.
A proper noun is a noun that is the name of a specific individual, place, or object.
(C)atholic is a proper noun and specifically the name of your sect and a name which id found no where in scripture.
"You would know this if you studied History, and followed Scripture"
I have been a ardent sudent of history since the age of 8. cont'd
troysz 6 months ago
@drdst17 it was at the age of 8 that I 1st read the writings of those whom your sect call the "Early Church Fathers" (including St. Ignatius).
Between the age of 8-10 I also read the Didache and the Catechism of the Catholic church. I will not be as arrogant, foolish, and presumptous as you and assume that you are being a hypocrite in not studying history yourself. However I will say this; When one studies scripture they are studying history. The Bible is full of history. You know this right?
troysz 6 months ago
@drdst17 In fact the Bible contains many historical truth that you will not find in secular history. You did know this right? You cannot find in secualr history as much information about Jesus as in scripture. You did know this right? I wonder?
I have been a student of both history and the Bible since the age of eight because was curious as to why there were so many different types of churches. I studied and have been studying ever since. So next time don't be so presumptuous and arrogant.
troysz 6 months ago
@drdst17 And stop running from the truth; your sect is not found anywhere in scripture. Your Catholic sect did not exist in the 1st century. It is not the church which Jesus spoke of and it is not the church which the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit founded.
troysz 6 months ago
If we follow scripture, thus also the Old Testament, we should stone all prostitutes, yet Jesus teaches something else. Intepretation of the scripture based on love. Jesus is against the simplistic application of sola scriptura.
pitnemesis 1 year ago
@pitnemesis: Huh? That didn't make any sense at all.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
Everything you and I need to know regarding our salvation is contained within scripture. No other source is needed.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnthreesixteen316
"Everything you and I need to know regarding our salvation is contained within scripture. No other source is needed."
really ? Show us that statement in the Bible. Book, chapter and verse please.
MrJamesthecatholic 10 months ago
"In the beginning was the Word....."
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
Psalm 138:2 (King James Version) 2I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
thebereanchannel 1 year ago
So what do you mean now that you just have the bible and everything will be answered by it. In Luke chapter 4 Man does not live on bread alone but in every word that comes from the mouth of God. Both in old and new testament people were reading scriptures and lishtening to God through His prophets. By your theory means that God cannot say anything further. He is God and if He wants to say something more He has all the right just like you. Don't make God mute by not listening to prophets.
krizzia1000 1 year ago
SOLA Scriptura, rather than SOLO Scriptura. Thank you! Roman Catholics, please pay attention.
Thomistica 1 year ago
@Thomistica When it comes down to it, theres no difference. Scratch beneath the surface a bit & you find this comes down to circular logic. IF the scriptures were the highest authority, then everyones interpretation of those words are just as valuable as the next persons regardless of contradiction. Roman Catholics are smart enough to realize this & know that sola scriptura is taught no where in scripture. Its only a presupposition. Roman Catholics know that scripture & tradition is necessary.
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz We don't deny that tradition is necessary. Tradition is absolutely necessary. We just deny that tradition is on the same level as Scripture.
Thomistica 1 year ago
@Thomistica Then how do you get to the important root of what IS inspired scripture? Tradition is at its very roots which is why the Catholic church recognizes that they go hand in hand. Also, scripture alone does say the pillar & foundation of truth is the church where it could have easily said scripture here. So all in all, who has the ultimate authority on who has the RIGHT interpretation of scripture? Is that person you? If its not you who does? Someone has to have it right?
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz Providence saw to it that on such a paramount matter for faith and morals (what *is* the NT canon) the Fathers did not err. God's will determines all history. Doesn't make the Fathers infallible; all of the Fathers, individually and collectively, erred at other times. God evidently 'allowed' them to err on lesser matters.
I don't trust in the 'infallibility' of tradition generally. I trust that God would/did not let us go astray on such a paramount issue for all Christian theology.
Thomistica 1 year ago
@Thomistica So then you believe each Christian for themselves needs to reinvent the wheel to know for themselves that someone did not err on their part?
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz I don't have any anxiety over the truth of the Creeds, which lay out the essential doctrines of the faith. They are clearly Biblical; they may easily be demonstrated from Scripture. This is eminently trustworthy tradition; *the* standards of doctrinal orthodoxy second only to Scripture itself (again, we don't reject extra-Biblical authority; we just believe that Scripture is primary). This tradition is the safeguard 'lens' through which Scripture should be approached by every Christian.
Thomistica 1 year ago
@catchzz Protestants believe that what the Bible is saying to us re: faith and morals, what we need to know in order to be saved, is not a great mystery. Biblical interpretation, on these fundamental matters at any rate, is not rocket science. There's a reason why all Christian communions (RC/EO/P), despite their differences on 'second-tier' issues, agree on the absolute essentials/fundamentals of the faith, as put forth in the Creeds. We recognize that Scripture plainly teaches these truths.
Thomistica 1 year ago
@Thomistica Scripture doesnt necessarily plainly each everything, the scriptures themselves even admit that some things are hard to understand. But the fact remains that Christ will not confuse and the church is the highest authority over the written word, bc no matter how hard you try and get away from it, there will always be the written word plus someones interpretation of the written word and their bias towards whatever tradition they have known.
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz you "But the fact remains that Christ will not confuse and the church is the highest authority over the written word, bc no matter how hard you try and get away from it, there will always be the written word plus someones interpretation of the written word."
No, this is terribly wrong, God is the Highest AUTHORITY, the scriptures came from His Mouth to the body of Christ- Not the other way around. We are to have complete joy in the Scriptures God Breathed. 1 John 1:4
khalidsnowden 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@khalidsnowden So then you are saying that Jesus lied when He made the statements in John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:12-13; Luke 10:16; and Matthew 16:18-19? If you are saying that the Church teaches error, then that is exactly what you are doing based on these verses.
sbfjohnson 1 year ago
I just watched this video again and I'm genuinely puzzled by the difference he explains between SolO and SolA Scriptura - I've never heard it explained like that. The definitions I've always heard are that SolA Scriptura says that the HIGHEST authority in matters of the Christian, but that SolO Scriptura says that it is the ONLY authority.
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo Ive noticed that too, and with the nature of protestantism the concept of sola scriptura isnt always defined the same way. So therefore I think we need to look at it from the root of the word and say scripture only. We all know that scripture can never be alone, someones own bias & interpretation will always come into play.
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz The definitions given to SolO and SolA don't really matter anyway. If one says that SolA Scriptura means that the Church has *some* authority it is really no different from SolO Scriptura that says Scripture is the only authority.
Since both philosophies hold Scripture to be the *highest* authority it means that the individual's private, fallible interpretation of Scripture will always trump any other authority such as that of the Church, meaning it really has no "authority" at all
DarthMambo 1 year ago
"we believe that the bible is the metaphorical supreme court"
Ahh....but here's the problem - someone has to interpret Scripture... Who's interpretation will you trust? What happens when your own interpretation is in disagreement with someone else?
I'm assuming this is part of a longer talk but this clip doesn't explain the common problems with Sola Scriptura - the Bible itself doesn't teach it and how can you actually can say what goes in the Bible without the Bible being your guide?
DarthMambo 1 year ago
I encourage all catholics to read Sister Charlottes testimony. She was an ex-nun. Please read it with an open mind and i ask that you pray first that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Please read Home Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn and read that with an open mind. It brings forth the truth in the RCC which was found accidentally by a very anticatholic protestant ministers.
Good works in amazing ways to bring home his followers.
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz Great book! A man with a heart open to God and His message.
hiswife2002 1 year ago
@catchzz I must admit to you, my friend, i find it hard to take the catholic religion seriously at all. I base this on the clear unbiblical and twisted practices it contains. It is one thing to play the "tradition with a capital "T"" card, but when those "traditions" are in opposition to the Word of God, that is another. The pope claims to be another Christ on earth, and is given the name given in the Bible to God only. This does, i admit, harden my heart a lot.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Actually you are basing your "facts" on pure make belief. The pope doesnt claim to be Christ on earth, you fall for another whopper. Your response only leads me to believe you have a very closed mind & dont consider whats out there other than what you want to believe. The RCC is the most biblical church out there. Years of study I have done myself has proven this to me each more with every passing day. Sorry, but I cant take you seriously when you fall for anticathoic lies.
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz The title "Vicar of Christ" means one serving as a substitute or agent; According to the Bible, the Holy Spirit is the "substitute" or "agent" of Christ, not any man."Sorry, but I cant take you seriously when you fall for anticathoic lies." Thats fine, my friend. It makes no difference to you whether you believe me or not, that is not my job as a Christian. You call me and my comments anti-catholic, i call the roman catholic "church" anti-Christian.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@catchzz Kiwi wrote earlier that the Vatican sits on one of the 7 hills of Rome. Amazing that, don't you think considering that he is the first ever to discover that fact despite everyone else knowing that the Vatican isn't on the 7 hills. He knows something that everyone doesn't. I wonder if he has written to the National Geographic with this info explaining this new found evidence :)
.
I believe that it is safe to take anything he says with a pinch of salt.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
Without sola scriptura we have no certain, absolute truth by which we can defend our faith. No absolute to judge false doctrine. No confidence in any salvation. If the Bible isn't the authority, we have nothing.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Well, the Bible gives way to the Church, not vice versa. Its a shame that catholic do not hold the Bible up to such a high regard as mary and other dead people.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnthreesixteen316 (1) ""Without sola scriptura we have no certain, absolute truth by which we can defend our faith""
.
You don't know what Sola Scriptura is. So how can you be certain about what you write? SS makes the reader the sole infallible rule of faith not Scripture because YOU decide what Scripture says. If you cannot show SS clearly in Scripture then you have to deduce that Scripture means that.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 (1)" Without sola scriptura we have no certain, absolute truth by which we can defend our faith"
.
You don't know what SS is. So how can you be certain of what you write? In fact what you have wrote proves that Scripture is not the sole infallible rule of faith. You are the sole infallible rule of faith for you and not Scripture because you interpret Scripture and your interpretation is infallible.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today...
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 ...A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 I agree. The Roman catholic church says they have the authority, not the Bible. When you ask them where they get the authority, they say from the Bible! This is circle reasoning. Evolutionists use the same reasoning when dating fossils.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 When the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. ...
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 ...Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
the early church as described in the NT did the following: shared all things in common, relationships, support missionaries/ministers, teaching & preaching, praying, worshiping, reading of scripture, evangelism, fostering spiritual gifts. No where does the NT dictate fancy buildings, robes, repetitive prayer, a priesthood, Mary worship, sectarianism, or any order of service, etc.. all these are man made traditions added on.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Exactly friend! As a matter of fact, Revelation 17 describes those fancy robes......Revelation 17:4 "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication."
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Yes. the catholic church is clearly revealed by God in His Word. The re-sacrificing mass, penance, the wealth, the position of rome/vatican on 7 hills, rosary prayers, forbidding marriage, forbidding certain foodsm etc. God is very clever. He knew what was going to happen. Praise God that you and I know the truth. God gave us the Bible, Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Excellent! And true!
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Do you intend to reply to my questions? Or can I take your silence to be that you are avoiding them?
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh No, i do not intend to reply to all your questoins, because all you want is to argue and fight, so yes, you can take my silence as ignoring you.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 So you won't be interjecting between me and Jonny boy? Or will you throw in your two pence worth just to try and poison the well every now and then?.
.
By not answering this, I will take that as yes, you will not be interjecting/disturbing this debate. Thank you
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Take care, my friend.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 It never amazes me the ignorance of some ppl.
.
Vatican Hill is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the EAST side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the WEST. Go educate yourself before you decide to type anything else.Please, its embarrassing. You two remind of Richard Dawkins. He has a really bad habit of not doing any research before he decides to type also. And that is one of the main reasons he always looks like an ass.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
Cardinal Newman, in his book, "The Development of the Christian Religion," admits that ... "Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin..." (Page 359). “Through some crack or other in the temple of God, the smoke of Satan has entered .” — Pope Paul VI, 1972
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 (1)Since you believe that YOUR BRAND of Christianity is orthodoxy then it should be reasonable for you to show your brand of Christianity after the apostlic era.
. If you cannot show me your brand of Christianity after the 1st century then you get the picture i.e. the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's Church, the bride of Christ became an adultress.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. The Bible doesn't mention any brand. John 3:16..."For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That says it all. No need for catechisms, the rosary, works, scapulars, interceding apparitions, praying to the dead, apparition worship, the eucharist, purgatory, sacraments, co-redeemers, co-mediators etc. Christ's death on the cross is the only way. Simplicity.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Ok, so Jesus NEVER established a Church on earth that the gates of hell could not prevail against? I want to know how your position on this matter (Regardless of who or what this Church is)
.
By the way, Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. By saying that Jesus used Scripture does not prove your point. Satan used Scripture also, so using your logic that would mean that Scripture is the rule of faith for him also.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh My friend.....the Bible implies sola scriptura in many places. All you and I need for our salvation is contained within its pages. Roman catholic doctrines which are not contained within scripture are not needed to save us. Christ's death on the cross finished to job 2000 years ago.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 The doctrine of Sola Scriptura states that the doctrines neccessary for salvation are clear enough for even the unlearned to find. So if SS is NOT EXPLICIT, then it isn't clear enough for everyone to find and thus refuted.
.
And you would conclude that the bible being the sole rule infallible rule of faith would be CLEARLY shown in the bible if it was neccessary, would you not? But according to you it isn't. Thanks for that.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. It is clear in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:15,16.....”And that from A CHILD THOU HAS KNOWN the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 (1)You are contradicting yourself now. You wrote " The Bible implies SS" If something is implied then it is NOT EXPLICIT i.e. CLEAR.
.
You are falling over yourself.
.
2Tim 3:16 does not say that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. It is profitable not SOLELY SUFFICENT. And by the way, the Sciptures Timothy knew was the OT not the New. So using your logic, the OT is the sole rule of faith and not the New.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago 3
@TheManGadoosh Does the Bible explicitly or specifically mention your name or my name as being saved? No it doesn't, but it is implied. The word Trinity isn't in the Bible either, but it too is implied.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 "Does the Bible explicitly or specifically mention your name? No it doesn't, but it is implied. The word Trinity isn't in the Bible either, but it too is implied"
.
Then bang goes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not explicit within the pages of Scripture then it is refuted. It is obvious that you don't have a clue about SS and that is even more frightening because you believe in a dcotrine of which you have no clue
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Also what did Christ use to rebuke Satan? Scripture. "It is written" Catholics claim IT assembled the Bible in 390 ( i think ). This is a lie.326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 You are taking one specific circumstance and trying to apply it to all circumstances.
Christ followed the traditions of his fathers, and encouraged his followers to do so. Christ relied on the Old Testament and encouraged his followers to do the same. Christ held up the behavior of ordinary men as an example to follow. He told parables to bring Truths to light to His followers. He did not teach by Scripture alone.
He is not bound within the covers of a book
hiswife2002 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Hear lies the problem. Christians use the Bible to judge the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, whereas the Roman Catholics use the church to judge the Bible. Somebody has got this backwards. ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”)
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnthreesixteen316 "Christians use the Bible to judge the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, " Yes, not the catholic people, but the teachings.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 (2) Q: If Paul said to the Thessalonians that they were to "Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by word or by letter"
.
Was it just the letter that was inspired or was the spoken word also?
.
If both were inspired, could the letter (Scripture) be corrupted over time?
Or would that remain un corrupted?
If it could not, can you explain why it could not?
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. I don't think God is stupid enough to allow His Word to be corrupted over time. I believe you and I and everyone on this planet has access to the truth. If we don't then God can't judge us. If there is no absolute measuring stick then nobody knows who is right or wrong anywhere or at any time. So, who or what is the measuring stick? The RCC or the Word of God contained in scripture?
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 (2) Thus Scripture is subjective and the sole reason why we have 30,000 + denominations all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
.
What SS does is render the Holy Spirit the author of confusion. How can two people read from the same book and come to two different conclusions and both claiming to be led by the HS? It is not possible.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 (1) Cont.. If your interpretation is not infallible then who in their right mind would want to listen to it because that would mean that it is fallible and riddled with error. And who wants to listen to an intepretation that is riddled with error?
.
So are you the infallible intepreter of Scripture or not? Please enlighten us oh Mr Sola Scriptura
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. I find it interesting how Roman Catholics ( I used to be one many years ago) don't believe the Bible is the authority, yet they keep quoting it. Well, don't quote it anymore. Stop using it if it isn't authoritative. Don't mention petros or Petra. Don't mention bread and wine, body and blood. It could all be fables. Foolishness indeed.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 You are mistaken and, furthermore, have misrepresented the RC position. Just because you used to be a RC doesn't mean you knew your faith well or accurately. I find many RC's don't.
The Bible IS an authoritative document. Read the Catechism, particularly paragraph #'s 105-108.
Read it; you'll be surprised at what you didn't know and how far from truth the anti-Catholic drivel truly is.
Let those who have eyes see and ears hear.
hiswife2002 1 year ago
@hiswife2002 Hello friend. I was being sacrastic when I said the Bible wasn't authoritative. Besides, I am very familiar with the Roman Catholic faith. It certainly isn't the Gospel taught by Christ.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 "I was being sarcastic..."
Oops, sorry, I missed that.
Well, johnthree, if you believe that the RC faith isn't the Gospel taught by Christ, then I would say you didn't know your faith very well at all.
hiswife2002 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 (3) And the fact that we don't see SS anywhere being practised within the Church, means that either SS was not taught by the apostles or if it was, then the gates of hell prevailed aginst Christ's Church. Because the Church taught doctrines which YOU SAY are heretical. You cannot have it both ways.
.
And the fact that you will not look at this logically from a historical point of view is scary. Christ created a Church, simple!
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
Through infant baptism, keeping sacraments, church membership, going to mass, praying to Mary, and confession (just to mention a few), the Catholic church has developed a system of salvation through WORKS. God's word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works". "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago 4
@kiwichristian2009 (1) If you cannot show me your brand of Christianity after the 1st century then you get the picture i.e. the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's Church, the bride of Christ became an adultress. You get the picture?
.
You cannot show ONE Church father who arrived at (YOUR BRAND) of orthodoxy from going by the bible alone. Why is that?
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh The difference between you and me is that you think that Christs' church is the rcc, and i believe based on history and the Bible that it is not. So no, the gates of hell did NOT prevail against Christs' church. The roman catholic "church" is NOT Christ's church. If anything, it is clearly anti-Christian.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago 7
@kiwichristian2009 I agree 100 percent! So many people try to put a label on our relationship with the Saviour. You can't. The true church doesn't have a roof.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 (1) If you believe that it is based on "history and the bible" then it is obvious that you did not care to read what I wrote. LET ME MAKE IT CLEARER FOR YOU SO AS YOU DON'T GET CONFUSED...
.
(A) YOU BELIEVE that the Bible objectively teaches YOUR BRAND of the Christian faith. DO YOU NOT?
.
(B) YOU BELIEVE that your brand of the Christian faith is Christian orthodoxy. DO YOU NOT?
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 I asked you before and you refused to answer. If you are using HISTORY then we should be able to see your Church within it. If you cannot then the gates of hell prevailed because all that there ever was was Catholics and Gnostics. So are we to believe that the Gnostics are the true Christians? The faith of Gnosticism is the true Church?
.
If your claim is TRUE then show me your Church within the 1st 500yrs. If you cannot then the gates of hell prevailed. SO PLEASE SHOW ME
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Forgive me, I was replying to your comment made three days ago. I thought it was familiar :) It was the first one I noticed when I came on. Strange things happen when you have a six month old who thinks that 5 hrs sleep a night is good fun. You sometimes jump the gun. Again, my apologies.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Apologies accepted, my friend.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Amen! Never in the Bible does Jesus preach a religion.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 So then why did he send the lepers to the priests at the Temple? (Mark 1: 43-44, Lk 17:14). Why did He tell people to obey the priests of the Temple? (Matt 23:3) Jesus recognized religious authority. He also recognized that there are sinners within religion and we should follow His actions, not those of sinners, even be they religious leaders.
hiswife2002 1 year ago
@hiswife2002 To show them they were wrong, of course!
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 So, you are saying that He deliberately sent people to obey those who were doing wrong? Really? Uh, I don't think so.
hiswife2002 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 What a comment! "Never in the bible does Jesus preach a religion"
Jesus preached a truth, ONE truth. A truth that cannot be twisted into denominations all being correct in teaching conflicting truths. Jesus was the greatest teacher of all. He didnt teach denominations, but he did say that the CHURCH is the pillar & foundation of truth. The church teaches what Christ taught. He also taught that those that dont listen to the church should be treated as a tax collector.
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz Heres the problem. I consider there to be ONE Christianity. I do not consider the rcc, pentecostals, mormons, jw's, methodists, baptists, anglicans as "Christians" or "denominations". There is only one Christianity, and that is the one Jesus preached, which was a relationship with Him. "come to me", "I am the way...". I am not trying to be offensive, my friend. Honestly.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Im sure you arent trying to be offensive but at the same time I am trying to show you how what you describe doesnt jive w/ scripture. Where did Jesus direct people to go when looking for ONE truth of Christianity? The answer to that ? lies in Matt 18:15-18. So when a Christian has to find truth in the CHURCH, there must be a visible church that holds the ONE teaching Jesus gave. Individual Christians all have different ideas on what the truth is. They are not all correct.
catchzz 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 You can certainly consider Christianity to be one, and indeed, we share a common baptism and there is infinitely more that unites us than divides us. However, a look around the world shows that Christianity is not one - opinion differs greatly even in the very matter of salvation and we do not all eat from the same table. Indeed we must affirm what is common, but we cannot ignore the differences.
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo Christ said "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life" There is only ONE way, ONE Christianity.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 There's one Christ, sure, but many different interpretations of who he is and what he taught. For example, would you consider Arians to be Christians? Nestorians? Mormons? Jehovah Witnesses?
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo Exactly. But only ONE is correct. The Bible clearly describes Jesus and His attributes and sayings. Yet mormons, jw's and catholics twist them
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Well, it can't be *that* obvious, otherwise you'd expect to find perfect uniformity in the Protestant world. The thing is, you don't. Instead you find disagreement upon virtually every doctrine: effect of baptism, role of faith in salvation, availability of charismatic gifts, role of women in ministry, ...
And what has been the cause of the constant division and splintering of congregations? The doctrine of....Sola Scriptura
Who's interpretation of Scripture do you trust?
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 So which Christian denomination has the right interpretation? Baptist? Presbyterian? Anglican? How do you decide?
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo You just don't get it. I don't think you ever will. There are no "Christian" denominations. You are either a Christian or are not. Baptists, Presb., Anglican, Catholicism, etc. all disagree on the Bible, so how can they be Christian? Period.The true church isn't catholic or protestant. It doesn't have a mailing address or a zip code. It is the body of believers in Jesus Christ the world over. Christ has written their names in the book of life. Christ knows who His friends are.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 But you just identified groups that misrepresent Jesus and what he taught (RC, Mormon, JW), so there clearly must be another group who authentically present Jesus. So who are these people and how can we tell the frauds from the real deal? Who can we go to for the correct interpretation of Scripture?
I'm also interested in your response to my "alcohol problems" :)
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 The question is about how you go to for the truth and how you identify these people
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Quick question Kiwi: If you say that there are no denominations. Then can the Christian Church (Fact: Christ esteblished a Church) Can these Christians have diametrically opposing doctrine?
.
Or do they share the same doctrine e.g. "One Lord, One faith, One baptism"? If they do, then what you would be saying is that there is only one Church because they share the same doctrine.
.
Don't want to fight here, but I am genuinely curious.
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@DarthMambo DarthMambo, no matter the amount of truth you speak to kiwichristian, it doesnt get through the thick skull. Kiwichristian is just another one of those that we must continue to pray for that the Holy Spirit guides them out of bigotry and welcomed home.
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz All I'm looking for are some answers. He said the Bible condemns alcohol outright - I presented him with eight Scriptural problems with that. If he has the truth it shouldn't be hard to refute.
He's said that some twist who Jesus is which implies that there is a group who doesn't. I'd like to know who these people are and how he identifies them. If he has the truth this shouldn't be hard to demonstrate.
I have hope that he will answer :)
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo You do deserve answers bc if a person is going to make an outlandish claim then they need to be able to back it up. Im afraid though as with most that are anticatholic/anti-truth you wont get any answers. Typical tactics of turning the tide will occur, the spouting of childish name calling will be included in the response, you just watch :)
catchzz 1 year ago
@catchzz Well, it's all in his power now - keep quiet, answer or avoid the questions :)
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@catchzz I'm afraid it looks like I'm not going to get an answer from kiwichristian2009 :-(
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo That is unfortunate.
catchzz 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 (2) Everything goes through Christ because He is the only mediator. If I pray for you I go through Christ. If I ask Mary or any of the saints who are alive in Christ to pray for me, then they do so through Christ, the ONLY mediator
.
If I ask you to pray for me, hopefully you would do so by going through Christ. This shows that I have asked you to mediate for me. Whats wrong with me asking you to pray for me if Christ is the ONLY mediator?
TheManGadoosh 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh Hello friend. People confuse the Roman catholic church with the Body of Christ. The 2 are not the same. There is a very good reason it is called 'Roman'.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@TheManGadoosh The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Did Jesus have a "relationship" with the Temple? With the priests? Was there not an address to where Christ worshipped? Christ exemplified BOTH obedience to ecclesiastical authority AND a healthy personal relationship with God. Not one OR the other. It is this taking of a part of Truth and banning the fullness of Truth that divides Christianity.
hiswife2002 1 year ago
@hiswife2002 Hello friend. What makes us Christians is our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. This is the fundamental common ground all Christians share. Nobody has to be a member of any organized religion to be Christian. Nor does being a member of any organized 'Christian' religion automatically mean you are a Christian. Christ searches the heart. He knows who His true believers are.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago