^^^ Superbly put!

Tell the illiterate old woman: Jesus loved you and died for you; now he asks you to believe in him and follow him.

Why does she need to task her brain on intellectual shenanigans?

And those who are fortunate/blessed to be highly educated (you could use the more supercilious 'highly developed intellectually') have big duty to be careful --- a very very big duty.

@italo
@Ubenedictus
@Syncan

What exactly is the difference between the Church and the people of God? What is the Church that the people of God have to look to for accurate guidance?

What I mean is this, is there some entity to which you refer when you say "the Church"? What is it?

debosky:
Everybody!

My dear read those passages again. Jesus was talking to his apostles. Dont just answer out of sentiments.

debosky: Hebrews 8:11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

1 John 2:27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

Why then did the apostles keep teaching communities that had received the Spirit?.. if the spirit would teach them everything and they didnt need anyone to teach them what was true? Were the apostles unaware of these verses you posted above (which they wrote)?

debosky: No - the church IS the people of God. They are one and the same!!

You mean Pope Francis, Adeboye and Pastor Chris are all part of the same Church. Why then does one say that there is purgatory, and the others say there isnt? Why does one say masturbation is not a sin but the others say it is a grevious sin? Why do some say Jesus is God and others say Jesus is not God?

Is this the ONE BODY, ONE SPIRIT, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH and ONE BAPTISM that was talked about in Eph 4:4-6?

debosky: They simply formalised what was already in common use in church groupings - they didn't ‘write’ the New Testament - were Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul's letters ‘written’ in the 4th Century?

You are obviously ignorant about the fact that there were disputes about the authenticity and inspiration of certain books at the canonization of the Bible.

And you are also ignorant of the date of inception of the Catholic Church. You think it started in the fourth century, dont you?

How do you know all these books were written by their purported authors and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Were you there? Is it not because The Catholic Church told you so?

debosky: Because human beings can go astray - that you got something right yesterday doesn’t mean you will always get it right. Why should I accept the practice of indulgences for example which was never taught by Jesus? Why should I accept the practice that the ‘same Church’ eventually ‘modified’ when it saw its error? We hold on to that which is true and discard the rest.

Once again, I will state that I believe we are not on this thread to throw wild allegations. The doctrine of Indulgences has never changed. What happened was that indulgences were being abused and misused at the time and this misuse and abuse was later checked. No Catholic doctrine has ever changed.

Since you refuse to believe the Church now because "human beings can go astray," why then do you believe the Church in its early teachings and the compilation of the Bible. Couldnt they have gone astray before then?

debosky: Gladly

2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.

Nowhere do the verses show a teaching being challenged from within the Church. In fact Colossians 2:19 shows that the people being referred to are not connected to the head - Jesus, so how can they be within the Church?

19 "They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow."

Zikkyy:

It was much easier then, cos the council members were what you would call the 'founding fathers' It's not that easy anymore. Just imagine if you have a council with homos as majority addressing the issue of gay marriage

Please note i do not have the RCC in mind when making the comment above, just an illustration.

...And you think the "founding fathers" were sinless?

Enigma: ^^^ Superbly put!

Tell the illiterate old woman: Jesus loved you and died for you; now he asks you to believe in him and follow him.

Why does she need to task her brain on intellectual shenanigans?l

And those who are fortunate/blessed to be highly educated (you could use the more supercilious 'highly developed intellectually') have big duty to be careful --- a very very big duty.

Very true, big bro. Hard lesson for me to learn. Still learning it even. May the Lord help us. Amen.

Zikkyy:
What are you going to ratify, when the major decision maker is said to be infallible? the council more likely to be rubber stamp. That's my issue here. If the council considers the views/feedback from the congregation before taking a decision, your approach will be most ideal even if it will not solve the problem 100%.

Is that what happened at the council in Jerusalem?

They took feedback from every Christian?

Ihedinobi: @italo
@Ubenedictus
@Syncan

What exactly is the difference between the Church and the people of God? What is the Church that the people of God have to look to for accurate guidance?

What I mean is this, is there some entity to which you refer when you say "the Church"? What is it?

Ah ha!!!!

I had deliberately held back from asking that question! Now let us lance the boil.

According to Roman Catholics: what is "The Church"?

debosky:

Then let me explain - a church grouping is a group of Christians who belong to Jesus’ ONE Church who fellowship in a particular location - See the Revelations for the messages to specific church groupings - the church at Thyatira, the church that meets in your home (Romans 16:5, Philemon 1:2)

Were they teaching one doctrine or different doctrines?

debosky: The bible’s validity comes from this simple verse, not any ‘church authority’:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

How do you know 2 Tim was authentic and scriptural? The Catholic Church said so. If the Catholic Church had removed 2 Tim from the canon, you would have never read it. The Bible gets its validity from the authority of the Church that compiled it.

debosky: That a Council ‘formalised’/’endorsed’ the scripture ALREADY in use by church groupings at the time does not mean it the council ‘declared it’ as God’s word. People were using Paul’s teachings, Luke, Matthew and James’ writings long before any Council did anything.

People were using "the Acts of Peter", "Gospel of Barnabas" etc. Why dont you use them? Because the Catholic Church declared they were not scripture.

debosky: That there were debates (which occurred even in Paul’s time) doesn’t mean that a common recognition was not reached. Paul wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them. John wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them.

Paul and John were among the 1st leaders of the Catholic Church.

debosky: It’s like saying because I burned a CD with Wizkid’s songs, Banky W’s songs, 2Face’s songs and PSquare’s songs combined, I now claim to have written those songs. Ridiculous idea.

Its like saying "the songs were not done by Nigerians, it was done by Wizkid, 2Face, Psquare etc.... CRAZY! CRAZY!!! I tell you.

debosky: I do not dispute that people have sought their own teaching - the scripture predicted this would happen. However, it is not the devil that sowed anything. And again I repeat:

Joel 2: 28-29 28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

This is not pride - this is the Word of God! Or did the Catholic Church write Joel as well?



The enemy and human nature is responsible for divisions, which is why we must continually rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, and not the Church - we look to the head of the Church who is Jesus, and he has given us the Holy Spirit.

You protestants have been doing it your way for 500yrs and have ended up in this massive confusion where we have millions of doctrines. If you think the Spirit Joel is talking about has anything to do with this madness, then I leave you to your confusion.

Zikkyy:

The problem is that you believe the false teachers cannot infiltrate the council and take charge.

The problem is you dont know what you believe. If they did, then you can never be sure you know Christ.

Enigma:

And after Philip left that Ethiopean eunuch, who was teaching the eunuch? Who was preaching to him? Who taught him about "speaking in tongues"? Who taught him about "transubstantiation"? Who taught him about "papal infallibility"? Who taught him about "the canon of Scripture"?

You tell us who taught him. You?

debosky:

Since the church 'wrote' the New Testament as you claim, why didn't you 'write' indulgences into the New Testament? Could it be that Paul, John, James, and other writers of the NT did not practice such?

NOT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN BY LETTER. PAUL SAYS THIS IN ONE OF HIS LETTERS.

2THESS 2:15: 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

debosky:

That is not the question - the question was whether there were teachings in the church that were challenged. Clearly such teaching existed and was challenged.

Oh! You atre talking about a false teaching being challenged by the Church? Of course. It continues to happen today. What exactly are you saying by this?

Zikkyy:

well....you said it.

it just your belief, we don't know if your belief will hold.

At least I have a belief. You dont, yet you say you are a Christian.

You have to understand that the content of the books is not the issue here. The church teaches from the book and probably adds its own and try to justify it with the book. That's my issue. In the course of doing this the church can get it wrong.

The Church teaches from the book and from tradition. The same Church that taught so much by letter, taught much more by word of mouth.

You protestants just dont get that.

Zikkyy:

well....you said it.

it just your belief, we don't know if your belief will hold.

At least I have a belief. You dont, yet you say you are a Christian.

Zikkyy: You have to understand that the content of the books is not the issue here. The church teaches from the book and probably adds its own and try to justify it with the book. That's my issue. In the course of doing this the church can get it wrong.

The Church teaches from the book and from tradition. The same Church that taught so much by letter, taught much more by word of mouth.

You protestants just dont get that.

Zikkyy:

The books aligns very well with my belief (though it instrumental to my taking such decision). what am saying is that if the books are false, then there is no Christ. but if the heretics were preaching Christ in process, all good.

Even if the books are false, it wouldnt mean there is no Christ. The books could well be a deliberate misrepresentation of the person and teaching of Christ.

It would still mean that you do not know what you believe.

italo:

My dear read those passages again. Jesus was talking to his apostles. Dont just answer out of sentiments.

Perhaps because the apostles represented the whole Church, no? It's hard to say that you're talking to a person's hand and not himself.

Why then did the apostles keep teaching communities that had received the Spirit?.. if the spirit would teach them everything and they didnt need anyone to teach them what was true? Were the apostles unaware of these verses you posted above (which they wrote)?

What if you considered it like this: the apostles gave what they received and the Holy Spirit within each believer confirmed it to the believer thus safeguarding them from impostors? How do we know that what the apostles taught was true? How do we know who was the true apostle and who was the false? Because the Holy Spirit confirmed to the hearers the truth that came to them.

Even when Paul was here fighting the wars of the Cross, he was troubled by impostors just as much as we are today. How were believers protected from those who would lead them astray? Not really more teaching from the apostles for even Paul himself was worried with accusations that he himself was a false apostle. As Paul himself said, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

You mean Pope Francis, Adeboye and Pastor Chris are all part of the same Church. Why then does one say that there is purgatory, and the others say there isnt? Why does one say masturbation is not a sin but the others say it is a grevious sin? Why do some say Jesus is God and others say Jesus is not God?

Is this the ONE BODY, ONE SPIRIT, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH and ONE BAPTISM that was talked about in Eph 4:4-6?

While I do not presume to speak for Bro debosky, I feel sure that you know he couldn't have meant that. But he will clarify for you himself. However, the Church is not a conglomeration of Christian organizations. I say that because it is those organizations as such that hold these many and varied views on the Bible. Individuals either subsscribe to them or reject them. And it is individual believers in their naked faith in Christ that make up the Church. At least, so the Scriptures say or seem to say.

How do you know all these books were written by their purported authors and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Were you there? Is it not because The Catholic Church told you so?

Actually no. Christians can tell what and what are inspired by the Holy Spirit by the resonance or lack of it such things have with the Holy Spirit within them.

Once again, I will state that I believe we are not on this thread to throw wild allegations. Since you refuse to believe the Church now because "human beings can go astray," why then do you believe the Church in its early teachings and the compilation of the Bible. Couldnt they have gone astray before then?

Again, I'm confused by your reference to the Church. I look forward to some explanation of it.

Nowhere do the verses show a teaching being challenged from within the Church. In fact Colossians 2:19 shows that the people being referred to are not connected to the head - Jesus, so how can they be within the Church?

19 "They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow."

But then they were not altogether strangers to the Church. They were not outsiders bringing in strange ideas, they were insiders with warped conceptions of Christ. They easily passed themselves off as members of the Body.

Enigma:

OK

Was that eunuch taught specific "doctrines" like "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction"?

You tell us.

italo:
The Catholic Church today cannot teach, and has never taught something that contradicts what it taught through the apostles in the 1st century.

Who told you the catholic church cannot teach wrong. This is the problem, you just believe the catholic church cannot go wrong. are they not human? Just pray you don't get a gay leadership that will allow gay marriages someday. peeps like you will not recover from such decision, cos you so much believe the church leadership cannot be wrong.

italo:
The Catholic Church today cannot teach, and has never taught something that contradicts what it taught through the apostles in the 1st century. It is YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of what the Catholic Church taught through the apostles writings and YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of what The Catholic Church teaches today that can cause you confusion.

There will always be private interpretation, otherwise you become a zombie.

italo:
...made available by who? Why do you protestants always dodge that part?

I still don't know why you call me a protestant, and i don't remember ever arguing over who compiled the bible.

italo:
So you accept Christ and the Bible, but you reject the Church that compiled and gave you the Bible and its interpretation. That is hypocrisy.

For me, this is not a matter of rejection. Your anger should be directed at frosbel not zikkyy. don't think have done enough to justify your accusations. my belief is that the church leaders are human and can make mistake. i will accept interpretations that aligns with my understanding of what is written.

italo:
Besides how do you the description of Christ you accept is the true one? How do you know it is not an imaginary "christ" described by heretical leaders of the church in the heretical books they included in the bible?

This is the only Christ i know. if you know of any other Christ, i need the info so i can compare.

italo:
They are not Churches. Jesus founded only one Church. All those shops were founded by men.

The church is not the shop. i will agree with you to the extent that some peeps consider the shop a church.

italo:
I say THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. What do you say?

it depends on the interpretations that aligns with my understanding of the scriptures.

debosky:

You tell me - is it someone who simply believes because he is a member of the Catholic Church that makes him qualified?

I have said it before. Dont pretend like you dont know my answer. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Whats your answer?

debosky: I know this through historical accounts.

Which historical accounts? Please tell me.

And can I also go into historical accounts to prove that the Catholic Church is the same Church that Peter and James and Paul led?

Or are Catholics alone barred from using historical accounts?

debosky: Oh now we've moved from compiling from 'writing'? The scripture were identifiable by many in the early church based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don't get what point you're making here - is the date your issue?

My friend, you have started acting dubious. You said "The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible?" And I said tell me when. Why then do you talk as if I suddenly changed the topic from "writing" to "compiling?"

Stop being dubious and simply answer the question. At least your "historical accounts" should say when it happened. If you are truthful that something happened, you should have a sense of the time or period it happened.

debosky: Don't move away from the central point - Salvation is by Jesus' death. How is a different matter. Or are you claiming that there are Christians that believe Salvation is not by Jesus death?

There might be. Who knows? If there are "Christians" who believe that Jesus was merely a man.

But how do you know God's teaching about salvation?

BY FOLLOWING YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES, RIGHT?

debosky: I agree that there are dangers in private interpretation and misunderstanding - but get this: Your 'catholic' church is as susceptible to misunderstanding as any 'protestant'.

Are you saying your protestant methods of interpretation are fallible? The Catholic Church says it is infallible!

debosky: What are 'my doctrines' that you refer to? My 'doctrine' is that Jesus death is the route to salvation: Is that a false doctrine?

Is that your only Christian doctrine?

Do you believe that if you do not eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, you have no life in you?

Or what is your personal interpretation of the verse?

Enigma:

Philip did not teach him about "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction".

How do you know this? Where does the Bible say Philip did not teach him these?

Ihedinobi:

I think the bolded is where the root of division lies - a question of non-essentials.

You, a Christian, call a matter of salvation or damnation "non-essential?"

I will let your conscience reply you on that one.

Ihedinobi: If we are all agreed that we are saved because Jesus died, why is it important what the hidden workings of His Death were?

Because if you get it wrong, Jesus death would mean nothing for you, in the end.

[/quote]It's quite obvious, no? that all the squabble about interpretations arises out of this feeling that your own knowledge is the correct one.[/quote]

For me, NO. For you? What does your squabbling arise from?

italo: My dear read those passages again. Jesus was talking to his apostles. Dont just answer out of sentiments.

The passages are for everybody - it said ALL, from the least to the greatest. Who did John write his letter to? Only apostles?? Can you tell us what other teachings are reserved for 'apostles' and which ones are for us 'laymen'?

Why then did the apostles keep teaching communities that had received the Spirit?.. if the spirit would teach them everything and they didnt need anyone to teach them what was true? Were the apostles unaware of these verses you posted above (which they wrote)?

The bible says ‘no longer’ - it means there is a time for teaching, after which one should be able to discern the will of God through the Holy Spirit.

You mean Pope Francis, Adeboye and Pastor Chris are all part of the same Church. Why then does one say that there is purgatory, and the others say there isnt? Why does one say masturbation is not a sin but the others say it is a grevious sin? Why do some say Jesus is God and others say Jesus is not God?

I don’t know - the Lord knows those who are His. You can make your own judgments if you wish.

You are obviously ignorant about the fact that there were disputes about the authenticity and inspiration of certain books at the canonization of the Bible.

I am not ignorant - yes there were disputes, but that does not mean there were no widely accepted and authentic usage of Paul, Peter, John and others’ writings. Like I said - formal ‘endorsement’ or ‘compilation’ of what was already commonly in use is different from claiming authorship.

And you are also ignorant of the date of inception of the Catholic Church. You think it started in the fourth century, dont you?

I don’t - I simply stated that your claims of ‘writing’ the New Testament in the 4th Century is incorrect. Pay attention and stick to the subject of discourse.

How do you know all these books were written by their purported authors and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Were you there? Is it not because The Catholic Church told you so?

It is because early church groupings (e.g. the churches at Ephesus, at Thessaloniki, at Antioch, etc) had received these teachings and were using them. That they were 'formalised' at a council doesn't change the fact that they were already treated as inspired among many church groupings at the time.

Once again, I will state that I believe we are not on this thread to throw wild allegations. [bThe doctrine of Indulgences has never changed[/b]. What happened was that indulgences were being abused and misused at the time and this misuse and abuse was later checked. No Catholic doctrine has ever changed.

Nonsense - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PAUL VI INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA WHEREBY THE REVISION OF SACRED INDULGENCES IS PROMULGATED

Please tell me what it means to revise?

Since you refuse to believe the Church now because "human beings can go astray," why then do you believe the Church in its early teachings and the compilation of the Bible. Couldnt they have gone astray before then?

The Church didn’t write the bible, it was written by Christians inspired by the Holy Spirit - those who had close encounters with Jesus and those that were with Him while he was on earth. The Catholic church as you call it TODAY has imbibed practices that are not supported by the written accounts of those that had close contact with Jesus. I cannot go back to 70 AD or 90 AD to re-investigate everything, so I will stick with that which I am confident is true.

Nowhere do the verses show a teaching being challenged from within the Church. In fact Colossians 2:19 shows that the people being referred to are not connected to the head - Jesus, so how can they be within the Church?

Where were the teachings in Thessalonians being carried out? In the market? The emphasis in 2:19 had to be made because those people were still physically present within the Church but were in actual fact SPIRITUALLY disconnected. They had lost that connection, meaning they were still physically associating with the church.

Ihedinobi: @italo
@Ubenedictus
@Syncan

What exactly is the difference between the Church and the people of God? What is the Church that the people of God have to look to for accurate guidance?

What I mean is this, is there some entity to which you refer when you say "the Church"? What is it?

Strictly speaking... THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You? How do you think the people of God should learn accurately God's teachings?

Enigma: ^^^ Superbly put!

Tell the illiterate old woman: Jesus loved you and died for you; now he asks you to believe in him and follow him.

Why does she need to task her brain on intellectual shenanigans?

And those who are fortunate/blessed to be highly educated (you could use the more supercilious 'highly developed intellectually') have big duty to be careful --- a very very big duty.

So it is okay if she just believes in him...even if she goes on committing sin without repentance?

CRAZY!

Ubenedictus:
what happen when some preachers started preaching circumcision, d council of jerusalem happened, what happened when arius d presbyter rejected d Godhood of christ a caused division in the church, d council of nicea.... The list goes on. At d end d heresy is decleared for what it is and d true teaching continues.

We past that age when councils exist to decide what is true teaching and what is false teaching. Now councils exist to rubber stamp the decisions/teachings of the big guy.

Ubenedictus:
the bolded is what italo also rejects. The apostolic teaching must be infalliable or we are all in trouble.

The apostolic teachings, yes. but church teachings today need to be properly scrutinized before acceptance.

Ubenedictus:
d apostles are not a separate entity on their own, they are part of d church, d church continues to teach thoughout the ages d very same the apostle taught that is why paul says "the church is d pillar and bulwark of truth"

i have no issue if the church been teaching the same stuff taught by the apostles. but is it possible for the church to come up with teachings that contradict that of the apostles? i will say yes. it all depends on the guy in charge at any point in time.

Ubenedictus:
can one reject d church dat wrote and compiled d bible and at d same time accept d bible? No they are on package.

The issue is not about rejection. To reject the church is to reject (ext.) 1.2 billion people. No, am not rejecting anybody.

italo:

Strictly speaking... THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You? How do you think the people of God should learn accurately God's teachings?

Describe this "the Catholic Church" to me, if you will. Is it a congregation of people or a mystical quantity? What does it mean?

Enigma:


Ah ha!!!!

I had deliberately held back from asking that question! Now let us lance the boil.

According to Roman Catholics: what is "The Church"?

Strictly speaking, The Catholic Church.

According to you, it is "any two or three are gathered in Jesus name", right?

italo:

You, a Christian, call a matter of salvation or damnation "non-essential?"

Please explain how the workings of the Death of Jesus, that is, how the Death of Jesus saves rather than the bare fact that it does, are a matter of salvation or damnation.

italo: I have said it before. Dont pretend like you dont know my answer. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Whats your answer?

I will, but let’s investigate your answer first - so simply by saying ‘I am in the CATHOLIC CHURCH’ means ! am permitted to teach?

Which historical accounts? Please tell me.

There are numerous - collections of Paul’s work called the ‘memoirs of the apostles’ had been in circulation long before your so called ‘writing of the New Testament’ in the 4th Century.

And can I also go into historical accounts to prove that the Catholic Church is the same Church that Peter and James and Paul led? Or are Catholics alone barred from using historical accounts?

It may have had its origins within the early church groupings, but its current practices now such as indulgences and asking Mary to pray is not consistent with the teachings of Paul and James as recorded. Like I told you, holding a ‘connection’ to the early Church means nothing if you have moved away from the teachings of that early Church.

My friend, you have started acting dubious. You said "The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible?" And I said tell me when. Why then do you talk as if I suddenly changed the topic from "writing" to "compiling?"

I am not dubious in the least - I don’t know the exact date, neither do I consider that to be central. The fact is that it happened.

Stop being dubious and simply answer the question. At least your "historical accounts" should say when it happened. If you are truthful that something happened, you should have a sense of the time or period it happened.

It happened over a period of time - there are collections of scripture in use from the second century which show many/most of the books of the NT already being read together.

There might be. Who knows? If there are "Christians" who believe that Jesus was merely a man.
But how do you know God's teaching about salvation?
BY FOLLOWING YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES, RIGHT?

I don’t need to follow any private interpretation - it is plain enough to see and read from scripture.

Are you saying your protestant methods of interpretation are fallible? The Catholic Church says it is infallible!

I am saying individuals and groups can make mistakes. If the Catholic Church is ‘infallible’ why did it have to ‘revise’ its doctrine on indulgences? Did it make a mistake the first time?

Is that your only Christian doctrine?

It isn’t but you’re veering off track here by making silly statements. How do you know my doctrines are false without even knowing what they are?

Do you believe that if you do not eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, you have no life in you? Or what is your personal interpretation of the verse?

What verse?

Ihedinobi:

Describe this "the Catholic Church" to me, if you will. Is it a congregation of people or a mystical quantity? What does it mean?

I dey chop popcorn and dey wait. Looku and laughu!

Ubenedictus:
while d councils do so, d approach will still be problematic unless d council resolve only to teach what d church of christ always taught. If d feedback method alone is used then all d churches in america will teach dat gay sexual activities are moral.

There is no option/approach to the issue of interpretation that provides 100% solution. i don't expect the council to accept feedback from the congregation just like that, but it must consider their views as well. and i agree that decisions must align with Christ/apostles teachings. gay right cannot be in the majority except (maybe) america or uk

Enigma:

And bros, quite often people misrepresent and overstate what happened at the Council of Jerusalem. That Council addressed a very small number of specific things,

So what then happened to all the many many many different things that Christians still worried about (and that divide Christians today) ---- who says that those Christians of that era did not still do some things differently. Remember that the New Testament had not been written at the time.

True talk. Something to think about.

Ihedinobi:

Perhaps because the apostles represented the whole Church, no? It's hard to say that you're talking to a person's hand and not himself.

So when the apostles were given power to forgive and retain sin in John 20:22,23, Jesus was talking to you and Enigma too abi?

Ihedinobi: What if you considered it like this: the apostles gave what they received and the Holy Spirit within each believer confirmed it to the believer thus safeguarding them from impostors? How do we know that what the apostles taught was true? How do we know who was the true apostle and who was the false? Because the Holy Spirit confirmed to the hearers the truth that came to them.

Even when Paul was here fighting the wars of the Cross, he was troubled by impostors just as much as we are today. How were believers protected from those who would lead them astray? Not really more teaching from the apostles for even Paul himself was worried with accusations that he himself was a false apostle. As Paul himself said, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

I dont like long directionless stories, sorry. If the Holy Spirit is sufficient to teach every believer everything, why did the apostles keep teaching those who already believed?

Simple question!

Ihedinobi: While I do not presume to speak for Bro debosky, I feel sure that you know he couldn't have meant that. But he will clarify for you himself. However, the Church is not a conglomeration of Christian organizations. I say that because it is those organizations as such that hold these many and varied views on the Bible. Individuals either subsscribe to them or reject them. And it is individual believers in their naked faith in Christ that make up the Church. At least, so the Scriptures say or seem to say.

Even individuals have their own contradictory doctrines...including you and debosky. Besides, Adeboye and Pastor Chris impose their personal doctrines on their organizations, dont they? How then can there be these differing doctrines in the one church of God that preaches one faith?

Ihedinobi: Actually no. Christians can tell what and what are inspired by the Holy Spirit by the resonance or lack of it such things have with the Holy Spirit within them.

Which "Holy Spirit" within them? The same one that teaches them millions of contradictory doctrines? PLEASE!

So it is by the Spirit that you knew that the letters were written by their purported writers?! PLEASE, JUST STOP THE DECEIT. What about the books that the Catholic Church threw out? Your Spirit also told you that there were unscriptural, abi?

Ihedinobi: But then they were not altogether strangers to the Church. They were not outsiders bringing in strange ideas, they were insiders with warped conceptions of Christ. They easily passed themselves off as members of the Body.

St. Paul said they had lost connection with the head. If you feel there were part of the body while being disconnected from the head, I have nothing to say to you on that.

Besides, doesnt that prove that it is the Church that interprets God teachings, not even individual lay members of the Church using their own private interpretation to their own detriment?