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?

Ihedinobi:

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.

Ubenedictus:
not when d holyspirit is alive, will he be sleeping when d whole church is teaching error!

Ubenedictus:
Again dat implys dat d bible u hold may be filled with error, a council compiled it.

italo:
The bolded is big evidence that you dont even know where you stand.

Syncan:

Yes o, because i believe Christ's word is true..."and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Syncan:

That's where we profess belief and yet we have no faith. The apostles were with Jesus, heard him preach that he will rise after the third day, yet they had no faith that it will happen that way. The same scenario is repeating, Why will i look at the "Church" as being solely under human influence?

italo:

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?

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!

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?

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?

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?

italo:

You are really trying hard to derail the thread, arent you?

Ihedinobi:

I most definitely am not. You hold that it is this "the Catholic Church" that has the only true and correct interpretation of the Bible. It is only fair that you tell us what it is, don't you think? I honestly have no idea what you mean by it.

italo:

My dear friend.

The issue this thread was meant to address is how christians are supposed to come to an accurate interpretation of scripture.

Not whether chemical weapons were used in Syria...or by what margin Obama defeated Romney.

Sorry to say.

debosky:

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'?

debosky: 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.

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

debosky: 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.

debosky: 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.

debosky: 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.

debosky: 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?

debosky: 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.

debosky: 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.

Zikkyy:

we are not talking about Christ word here o!

italo:

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

Ihedinobi:

I most definitely am not. You hold that it is this "the Catholic Church" that has the only true and correct interpretation of the Bible. It is only fair that you tell us what it is, don't you think? I honestly have no idea what you mean by it.

Zikkyy:

Yeah. same way Rev. King followers believed their pastor was being led by holy spirit you never know till something happen to show otherwise.

italo:

Is that what happened at the council in Jerusalem?

They took feedback from every Christian?

debosky: This is what (some?) Catholics also believe about the scripture, yet Italo is claiming authorship:

Through the gift of the Spirit the apostolic community came to recognise in the words and deeds of Jesus the saving activity of God and their mission to proclaim to all Imen the good news of salvation. Therefore they preached Jesus through whom God has spoken finally to men. Assisted by the Holy Spirit they transmitted what they had heard and seen of the life and words of Jesus and their interpretation of his redemptive work. Consequently the inspired documents in which this is related came to be accepted by the Church as a normative record of the authentic foundation of the faith.

Note the terminology - came to be accepted, not authored by.

Remember Italo stated that certain verses were written 'only' for apostles? This is what (some?) Catholics believe:

The perception of God's will for his Church does not belong only to the ordained ministry but is shared by all its members. All who live faithfully within the koinonia may become sensitive to the leading of the Spirit and be brought towards a deeper understanding of the gospel and of its implications in diverse cultures and changing situations.

Yet we are not allowed, according to Italo, to gain this deeper understanding of the gospel as individuals eh?

Now finally, as for what this 'church' is:

The Church is a community which consciously seeks to submit to Jesus Christ. By sharing in the life of the Spirit all find within the koinonia the means to be faithful to the revelation of their Lord. Some respond more fully to his call; by the inner quality of their life they win a respect which allows them to speak in Christ's name with authority.

To surmise - The Church is NOT synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church. It is identified by its characteristics not its title. Furthermore, it is by responding more fully to the call of Jesus that one speaks with authority.

Read More

Enigma:

We dey wait . . . .

Lef, rai, lef , rai lef

italo:

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

italo:
You protestants just dont get that.

italo:

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.

In the past, Roman Catholic teaching that the bishop of Rome is universal primate by divine right or law has been regarded by Anglicans as unacceptable. However, we believe that the primacy of the bishop of Rome can be affirmed as part of God's design for the universal koinonia in terms which are compatible with both our traditions. Given such a consensus, the language of divine right used by the First Vatican Council need no longer be seen as a matter of disagreement between us.

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

debosky: 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.

debosky: 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.

debosky: 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.

debosky: 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.

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

debosky: 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?

debosky: 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?

debosky: What verse?

italo: I meant the passages I posted. Jesus was talking to his apostles.

Why then did the apostles continue to teach people who had already been taught and had believed?

If you dont know who is in the Church and who is not, why have you been arguing about what you dont know all the while. Why didnt you just remain quiet?

Okay, tell us which books were widely accepted and which were disputed. How do you know the disputed ones are scripture? Is it not because the Catholic Church said so?

You believe because the Catholic Church told you so. If not, give me proof that these church communities used all 27 books of the new testament only.

"Revise" doesnt necessarily mean to change.
If I write my CV, gain another qualification, then decide to include it in my CV, I would have revised, not changed my CV. With the Catholic Church, no doctrine can change, we can only get more revelation about a doctrine that we had before. It is the same spirit that teaches us, He cannot contradict himself.

Those men were the first fathers of the Catholic Church. The Church does nothing contrary to the scriptures it partly wrote and fully compiled. It only does things that are contrary to your false interpretation of scripture.

Ihedinobi:

Interesting, bro. But we have to wait for italo to adopt it to be sure that it represents his own view of the issues. Maybe he means an entirely different Catholic Church.

Syncan:

Please remind me what we are talking about.

Ihedinobi:

Sure, but you chose to call me on my "wrong" which was made in my explanation for the multifarious interpretations that exist. I'm only asking you to clarify what you denounced as wrong.

Zikkyy:

Interpretations my dear, interpretations. that's the koko of the matter here

Syncan:
You see why it is unsafe to follow one man's interpretation of scripture. Even Paul himself had to go back to Jerusalem to be re-assured that what he was teaching is right. That's why we talk about councils and not one man.

Ihedinobi:

I most definitely am not. You hold that it is this "the Catholic Church" that has the only true and correct interpretation of the Bible. It is only fair that you tell us what it is, don't you think? I honestly have no idea what you mean by it.

italo: The magisterium of the Church teaches us. Its okay if i teach, as long as I'm not in contradiction to the Church.

What is wrong with you? Is this 'memoirs of the apostles’ THE BIBLE? Were Mark and Luke apostles? Why do you accept their books as scripture?

And stop repeating the lie that i said the new testament was written in the 4th century, unless you can provide proof.

"It may" You lack of knowledge about what you are arguing about is now very evident for all to see.

You dont know who and who make up the Church. You dont know when the Catholic Church started... Yet you have been blowing hot air since morning.

You are lied. No historical account told you that the Bible was compiled by the early church (except you mean The Catholic Church in the 4th century). You have no proof of your lie.

"many/most"... what about the remaining books. When were they included to make the bible? When was the Bible compiled? Simple. Stop

Plain enough to read but not plain enough to interpret so you follow your false private interpretation.

More truths were revealed by God. No truth was rescinded...nor has ever been rescinded.

If the Catholic Church is fallible, why do you believe they chose the right books for the Bible?