Standing Up To Rome

[oatmeal]

Here is a list of biblical texts on the subject.

• The Bible must be interpreted by human beings, and the mere fact that Protestantism is a fractured chaos of 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects is sufficient proof that your final comment above is simply unworkable in reality.
• Also, nowhere in Scripture can one find a text stating that the Bible is "sufficient" in a numerical, or formal, sense.
• Finally, Scripture itself contains positive teaching that apostolic oral Tradition is the word of God, and is to be affirmed and followed by believers.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.

Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.

The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.

To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.

If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCC

Jesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17

Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.

The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture. It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.

 

[turbosixx]

The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.

Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.

The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.

To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.

If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCC

Jesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17

Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.

The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture. It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.

Excellent point. I don't like the word interpret. I see it as understanding. We either understand the truth or not.

 

[disturbo]

The criminal has no infallible and binding authority.

Most disgusting institution that has ever existed on this planet.

ISIS is kinder and gentler than the RCC was in its hay day.

You have no clue of what you're talking about. Especially coming from somebody who has this in their signature...

For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.

It's people like you who cause people like me to NEVER call myself a Protestant. Offensive people like you belong in the PIT! And you'll eventually get there with the spirit of unforgiveness you possess.

Mat 6:14-15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Psalm 55:12-14 It is not an enemy who taunts me—
I could bear that.
It is not my foes who so arrogantly insult me—
I could have hidden from them.
Instead, it is you—my equal,
my companion and close friend.
What good fellowship we once enjoyed
as we walked together to the house of God.

Mar 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Luuk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Mat 6:14-15
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mat 5:23-24 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

 

[disturbo]

It doesn't really mater who's orthodoxy we choose to tie ourselves to, if any. What really matters is who we are becoming as a result of our choices. Religion can't save anyone, nor condemn anyone. We do that to ourselves.

Chrysotom said,

Jesus built the church
and
it was the church that gave us the bible
so
pay attention to His church

At least some people have some common sense on the forum!

 

[Zeke]

I don't know where you get the "Gnostic" idea in the Pauline letters. I don't think I am looking in the right place.

The letters that have been determined to have been written in Paul's name were written later by his followers and they signed his name to them--which is not an unusual thing to happen in the ancient world.

The Bible contains remembered history, oral tradition, theologies, legends and proverbs. The Gospel of John--because it presents a Jesus who is profoundly different from the portrait disclosed in the other three gospels--is basically full of early Christian theology. Because of this, most historians do not recognize it as being historical.

Nevertheless, I still see John as being "holy writ."

The mystery that Paul said was revealed to him is a Gnostic concept, that being Christ within you Colossians 1:27, that was being taught by others/Gnostic schools prior to the christian age.

As far as the first epistles Galatians is said to be the first one circulated, (before the four Gospels) I also agree some of Paul's epistles were ghost written and tampered with to make it seem like he believed in a historical Jesus. The Acts letter distorts his conversion and when compared they are pretty easy to see once the veil of denial programming is removed.

John has some pearls, yet some of sayings attributed to the Logos can be found in other ancient cultures and periods.

 

[WeberHome]

-
Christ's believing followers don't pray to his mom because the spirit of God's
son compels them to pray elsewhere.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

Abba is an Aramaic word that means, among other things, dad, daddy, pop,
papa, padre, dada, or father, et al. Abba isn't a formal title; it's a filial
vocative. For example: when I'm out in the garage working, and my son and
his mother are in the kitchen talking about me, the noun "dad" merely tells
my wife who my son is talking about. But when he wants to get my attention
by calling out: Dad! Where are you? Then "dad" is a vocative.

Anyway; what it boils down to is this: the spirit of God's son always compels
Christ's believing followers to call out to his Father, never to his mother, and
the reason for that is actually quite simple. Christ always prays to his
Father; never to his mother; ergo: the Father's children exhibit the very
same behavior because the spirit of Christ compels them to pray like he
does.

That, by the way, is a pretty good litmus test. If somebody is comfortable
praying to Christ's mom, they give away the fact that they lack the spirit of
God's son; which means of course that they have not yet undergone
adoption into His home.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

The Bible says to pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18, Jude 1:20). When people pray
in the Spirit; they pray in accordance with Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:15. In other
words: they don't pray to Christ's mother; they pray to his Father.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==

 

[disturbo]

The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.

The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.

How in the world do people come up with this stuff? "Scripture must not be interpreted by humans,"...?

You DON'T understand the very verse you quoted!

First of all understand the word 'private'....

...pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The word 'interpretation' isn't the word, 'interpret'.

Interpretation is epilysis

2 Peter 1:20 is the only place the word 'interpretation' is used in the bible. It does indicate a loosening and comes from the Greek word epilyō meaning to...

to clear (a controversy), decide, settle
to explain (what is obscure and hard to understand)

The word interpret is a completely different word...
interpret...

diermēneuō

to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound
to translate into one's native language

In other words, the verse is NOT implying that the scriptures must not be interpreted by humans. What it does imply is that no ONE person has these obscure and controversial prophecies all figured out!

You cannot define the word interpretation by the word 'interpret'. They are two completely different words.

Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.

That's incorrect. Our Job is to do both. We really cannot do one without the other if we really want to attain the truth. To interpret is to..."to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound to translate into one's native language".

To rightly divide is to confirm one's interpretation by making a straight and accurate cut. Better yet it means to, "accurately handle the word of truth." A little here, a little there...

To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.

If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCC

Jesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17

Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.

The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture. It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.

You are very misled. Typical of Protestants who do little homework of their own and who have accepted the teachings of their misled superiors.

 

[JonahofAkron]

A sizable amount of Paul's so-called letters have been determined to be forgeries.

Say what? By whom?

 

[JonahofAkron]

Your complete ignorance of precisely what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility even IS is noted. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You can begin to properly educate yourself on this subject with a careful study of the information provided in Post #28 above.

I read it and I read others. It still all boils down to a humans opinion being considered infallible because of their position and supposed tradition. This is simply biblical lunacy. I have no trouble with the pope, but he is not the Messiah and the actions of previous popes should be indictment enough of that fact.

 

[JonahofAkron]

Your complete ignorance of precisely what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility even IS is noted. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You can begin to properly educate yourself on this subject with a careful study of the information provided in Post #28 above.

Here ya go: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-infallibility.htm

 

[ok doser]

crucyform's post 28:

I hold to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, yes.

my response to crucyform's post 28:

even the ones who are widely recognized as being corrupt? :freak:

crucyforms response:

Your question has already been answered in Post #28 above.

admit it dude - you're a bot, right? :chuckle:

 

[JonahofAkron]

crucyform's post 28:

my response to crucyform's post 28:

crucyforms response:

admit it dude - you're a bot, right? :chuckle:

Sounds legit. I'm starting to respond to him with things I find on the Web. I hope he takes it seriously. It would save me so much time in writing.

 

[Cruciform]

I agree, but the Rcc leaders are human beings too.

Very true. The questiion is which human beings possess the inherent doctrinal authority from Jesus Christ to explain Scripture in a manner which is binding and authoritative upon the faithful. Is it [1] Christ's one historic Catholic Church, or is it [2] your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?

The bible was written on an elementery grade level and tells us we can understand by reading.

Your assumption of the supposed perspicuity of Scripture is addressed here, here, and here.

There’s disagreement and fractures within the rcc as well.

Not in any formal doctrinal sense. The Catholic Church maintains an ongoing theological unity, and has for the past two millennia.

Our challenge is to determine who is preaching sound doctrine, and the way we do that is compare it to scripture.

"...to scripture" as infallibly and authoritatively interpreted by whom, exactly...?

The canon is the canon for a reason. Great effort went into being sure that the included books were inspired by God.

...and who possessed the inherent doctrinal authority to bindingly define the biblical canon?---The one historic Catholic Church in the 4th century A.D.

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

No one here is disputing the divine inspiration of Scripture. We fully agree on that point.

The writings of the rcc are not inspired by God and are not scripture.

The Church has never claimed otherwise. However, the formal teachings of Christ's Church don't have to be inspired Scripture in order to be both infallible and authoritative. To assume so is to buy into a notion that simply didn't exist in the Christian Church until the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. For example, see this, this, and this.

I totally agree, we are to follow the apostles. The leaders of the rcc are not apostles.

The ministry of the bishops---the apostles' ordained successors---is, however, fully apostolic. Thus, their doctrinal authority is equal to that of the apostles (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation.

Post #53

 

[Cruciform]

Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation

Post #53

 

[Cruciform]

The scripture must not be interpreted by humans, II Peter 1:20, for the author of scripture, God, knows what He is talking about.Our job is not to interpret but to rightly divide. There is a huge difference between the two.The meaning of "interpret" is to let loose upon, we do not let our minds get loose with scripture.To rightly divide requires our greatest love for God and His words, discipline, thoughfulness, reading, research, prayerful anticipation of His guidance, patience (years, if that is what it takes) faithfulness, believing, diligence, education, being guided like Philip the evangelist, (not priest, bishop, cardinal nor pope) guided the Ethiopian, ministers of apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers as well.If the RCC had adhered to scripture instead of promoting their moral decay, there wouldn't be 50,000+ scriptural reasons to deplore and therefore split off from the RCCJesus made it clear that God's word is truth. John 17:17Note he did not mention the RCC and its 50,000+ man made doctrines and traditions which contradict scripture.The tradition that believers hold to is written in scripture.It is not found anywhere else, that which God wants us to know is in His words, not in the ramblings of mortal men.

Post #53

 

[aikido7]

Say what? By whom?

Historical researchers who are steeped from a lifetime's acquaintance with ancient texts.

I suppose they use methods like the FBI did when they found out who the Unabomber was. The culprit had written some "testimony and social critique" using the same words and vocabulary that he used in his writings to the media after each of his crimes.

And, of course, signing the name of one's teacher to their own writings was a common occurrence in ancient times. If they learned from Paul, they felt that Paul would bless their own theologies because they themselves saw them as something Paul might agree with.

Scholars have also found several instances in Paul's letters where he inserted an actual quote from other ancient secular writings at the time without identifying them as coming from elsewhere.

There has been historical study of the Bible since the late 1700s.

Just recently archaeologists have uncovered remains of two large Roman fish processing plants on the Sea of Galilee. These discoveries bears out the economic studies that have been done with the first-century world of Jesus's day.

The economy back then was precarious. Poverty was widespread (most of Jesus's sayings are about the poor and the income gap between the rich and the destitute) and folks were getting kicked off their small farms and losing their homes.

This inequality eventually resulted in the Roman-Jewish War of the 70s. The Middle East was a conflagration just waiting to happen.

 

[Cruciform]

I read it and I read others. It still all boils down to a humans opinion being considered infallible because of their position and supposed tradition. This is simply biblical lunacy. I have no trouble with the pope, but he is not the Messiah and the actions of previous popes should be indictment enough of that fact.

Back to Post #28 above.

 

[Cruciform]

Here ya go: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-infallibility.htm

Already answered---and refuted---in previous posts.

 

[turbosixx]

"...to scripture" as infallibly and authoritatively interpreted by whom, exactly...?

You. You and you alone will give account for yourself.