italo:

Is this "mediation" and/or "redemption?"

Both.

Redemption and Mediation.

italo: The Holy Spirit can reach people outside the Church. He can even reach people who dont believe in God. Does it mean these people are in possession of the fullness of the truth? No!

Yes, that's true.

For Christians, the Holy Spirit is our 'personal' teacher.

Or is that false?

italo:
It is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. So says the same Holy Spirit.

Yes, I agree.

If I may ask, what exactly is 'the truth'?

italo:
You disagree? You think they, like all of you who possess partial truth cannot make heaven?

I don't, neither do I agree because I DON'T KNOW.

What I know, I will say. There's only one source of salvation which is Christ.

If God will save anyone outside Christ, only He knows.

italo:
I dont know, until you show proof.

I hope you won't reject proof.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/841.htm

italo:

You failed to answer my question: are you infallible in every human field?

no, you failed to answer mine and instead, you asked yours.

When you answer mine, I'll attend to yours.

Paul's advice to Timothy on health: does it have a possibility of being wrong (Since the RCC says Paul was fallible in that aspect)?

Just answer honestly, you wont die.

italo:

You say so.

I ask: what was Christ's work on earth?

Christ's mission??

To reconcile God and Man.

italo: It so pleased the Holy Spirit to teach us through his Church...using the human faculties of the leaders of his Church in unison with the mind of the Church. If the Holy Spirit wanted to reach everybody directly, there'd be no need for a Church, Apostles or Bible.

If you decide to side-step the Church, your business.

do you mean the Holy Spirit does not reach people directly but through the church?
Then of what use is the Holy Spirit given to individuals?

oh! I see.
If the Holy Spirit isn't useful to other christians, God would not even have given them the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps, He wud have just given it to the 'church leaders'....however, because It so pleased God to teach christians as individuals, He gave everyone the Holy spirit.
However, the church (assembly of christians) is there to strengthen our faith and Knowledge.

italo:
Just like it pleased God to bring us to himself through his Son...but Muslims side-step the Son. There business too.

but your pope declared that muslims were on a way to God (knowing they side-step the Son)...

True or false?

italo: You and him still haven't shown me where the Bible says there are essential and non-essential doctrines...and lists them. If the Bible doesn't say such, say so. It won't kill you.

stop being a coward, be a 'man' for once and stop trying to 'hide' under a flimsy excuse.

The op says essential doctrines almost all denominations agree on....and He lists them.

You requested a proof from the bible....and you were given a passage that emphasises the importance of what He listed.


You on the other hand, you're 'trying to hide' using flimsy excuses to avoid defending what you declared and what the Rcc declared....

The Rcc says 'essentials'.....

As a rep of the Rcc, tell us those essentials.

And you, declaring those that believe Peter's life teachings are in those letters 'dull ones'.....yet unable to show your truthfulness and honesty by stating at least two of Peter's teachings outside those letters....even until now.

If you don't provide Peter's teachings outside those letters, don't be offended if you're seen as a 'duller' one.

italo: The doctrine of infallibility doesnt teach that the Apostles were morons on other matters...it teaches that they COULD not DEFINITELY teach errors.

You say you are infallible. Are you infallible in every human field?

thats not the point.
The point is that there's a possibility of error in other matters outside faith and morals since they are fallible in them...

Yes or No?

italo: Just like you refuse to call David "God." After all, Jesus is the Son of God -the Son of David.

David is NOT God, He is a man.

Jesus, Son of Man.
Jesus, Son of God.

Calling David God is blasphemy as we both know.

Mary, mother of Jesus, (mother of God according to Rcc)

All women that do God's will, mother of Jesus (according to Jesus Himself).
I wonder why the RCC has refused to accept them as 'mother of God' too....infact, worse of all, they are called 'CROWD'.

italo:
Tell us what exactly is the problem with the below.

the problem is that you have taken another mediator with the sole mediator that exist between God and Man.

OLAADEGBU:

God bless you for pointing out what he chooses to ignore.

Amen, God bless us all.

OLAADEGBU:
I hope italo comes back to enlighten us.

I'm also patiently waiting....I hope he enlightens us soon and not shy away from the lecture we're expecting.

Since the RCC reps have refused to acknowledge those Jesus called His Mother as the His true mother or 'Mother of God' as the RCC put it, why not let us move to the concept of Mary being a co-mediator with Jesus or a mediator to Jesus and Jesus to God.

Italo, Syncan, Woky and others that have something to say can continue pls.

Syncan:

hahaha, oh yeah? See how easy it is for you to quickly say, why didn't you suggest that when Galileo Galilee was suffering? Very easy now to explain off isn't it?

of course, I wasnt born when Galilei was 'suffering' to disprove a fact in the bible....
....but I'm alive when Syncan is trying to say that a fact in the bible is incorrect in reality.....and that's why it was easy to speak up.

Bro Syncan, Please, I mean no 'harm'.
I understand you perfectly.

Syncan:
Should we go into if alcohol is need for all stomach problem or not? How many medical treatment theory have continued to stand same over the ages? If someone comes tomorrow to dispute this now, you will turn around and tell me how it wasn't meant literally. His advise on medical is purely from his human knowledge of what could help at the time, more so; to an individual, he knows the problem timothy had, you don't. If a diabetic takes that advise and start taking wine for his stomach problem, because it was said by Paul, how complicated will his case be. Go back to what I said about conditions for infallibility and stop Insinuating all these.

Alcohol?
Wine does not necessarily mean alcohol in that passage.
Of course, there are non-alcoholic wines too.

Wine in that passage is 'oinos'....which also mean 'liquid medicine'.

Paul's advice to Timothy cannot be wrong (to Timothy) even if Paul was speaking 'fallibly'.

I think we should stop this whole thing here.

Bottom line, the bible is a book of infallible words....be it in matters of faith, morals, health or general lifestyle.

italo: @ adsonstone, here's the OP saying there are essential doctrines...implying there are non-essential doctrines. And he hasnt proved it from the Bible.

Are you afraid of challenging him?

Which is logical to talk about first on this thread...the Original Post or 'Anything Catholic?'

You implied it on behalf of Him.

He said 'essential doctrines' almost all Christians agree on, not essential and non-essential doctrines as you implied.

Here is what He said:

OLAADEGBU:
there are a number of essential
doctrines almost all of them agree upon—
and that is that Christ died for our sins and
rose again on the third day.

....and He was able to list some he thinks are essential....Perhaps, after reading 1Cor 15.

That chapter shows how important the death, burial and resurrection is.


But here is the Roman Catholic Church, saying the same thing yet, unable to list the essentials....and you, being a representative you are diverting and insisting I question the op.


Prove your honesty,
State the 'essentials' according to the RCC.
and Show that you are saying the truth by
Providing at least, two of Peter's teachings outside those
letters and make the 'dull' ones wise.

Syncan:

Is it that you are not aware of the use of colon in english, or you just try to be mischievious. Still, your insinuations remain with you, for history has taught christians wisely, for today we know that "the sun stood still" was not correct in actual reality of events.

till today, everyone..even scientists say 'the sun rises in the east and sets in the west'.....making it look like the sun actually does move....yet, they are correct.

Likewise the Bible, it says 'the sun stood still' showing it wasnt evening/night for a longer period of the day....(Joshua 10:13, the concluding part)
The bible was is correct and not incorrect as the bold suggests.

That should be clear.

Syncan:
If you decide not to take his instruction in 1Tim 5:23, will you be offending God?

thats not the point.
The point is: Could His advice be wrong? (since He was fallible in health issues)

Syncan:
Hahahaha, all these responses of yours, I shall call up when needed. Thanks a lot, very funny indeed.

you're welcome.


back to the apostles' fallibility in other matters outside faith and morals.

Apostle Paul said in 1 Timothy 4:8 that 'bodily exercise profiteth little' .....in 1 Timothy 5:23, He made another statement.... in both verses, he talked about health (thats outside faith and morals)....could he be wrong?

Syncan:

hahaha, bro adsonstone, act 18 vs 2 started with " and found a certain jew ( singular)", this jew was found with his wife. and paul lived with them.

Aquila....and His wife, Priscilla.

You proved me right.

Syncan:
Any one ...except you ofcourse, will see that the couple heard appolos speak in the temple and took him to themself (private).

Again, you proved my point.

Apollos taught in the synagogue....yet, Apollos and Priscilla took Him to themselves_to teach Him 'more perfectly'

Syncan:
where did paul say priscilla preach in the church adsonstone, where?

Apostle Paul never said such neither did I.
I wonder how you managed to imply that.

I said Priscilla (and Aquila) taught Apollos.....Apollos was teaching others in the synagogue.

Syncan:
The man and wife are mentioned as helpers. in Vs 19 even said paul left them in the house and went to the synagogue to teach.

i wonder where 'house' was mentioned in that passage.
Perhaps, you added it from your own imagination or learnt it from the Rcc's infallible interpretation.

Syncan:
First you try pitching peter against paul, now you are working hard to use paul to contradict himself.

sorry, but this is not true.

Syncan:
He said, " it is not permitted" you say "no he permited it", yet no proof.

perhaps, we should follow your infallible interpretation.

I wonder why you quote part of the passage. Let's now see the full one.

" Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).


Now, it is not a matter of teaching in churches anymore, it is now a matter of speaking.

If women are truly 'not permitted' to speak then;
they are not permitted to greet one another, they are not permitted to sing hymns, they are not permitted to ask/answer any question even when asked by the the cathechist
infact, It is a shame to do those things above.....they must remain mute as long as they are in the church.

Is that what you mean?

Now the next.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence ." (1 Timothy 2:12).

Here, If women are not to teach....

First, Priscilla was wrong to have taught Apollos.

Then,
they wont teach anybody....be it men, children, family and the rest of their household.

....and any woman that teaches is disobedient....perhaps, she may have sinned cos she taught.

Is this what you mean?

italo: Again, when you "study" a science textbook, you dont read it and apply your own private interpretation to it. You read and try to understand the interpretation of the author which, in-turn, conveys the teaching of the relevant Science body the writer belongs to.

Your private interpretation is only valid if it conforms to the interpretation of the body. If your "study" leads you to a contradiction with the body's teaching, you're wrong.

Same with the books of the Bible.

The Apostles were the authors and the Church is the body the belonged to. The Church has never stopped existing and teaching its interpretation.

you're affirming my point.
In the case of the Bible;
'You read and try to understand the author's view', if you dont understand, you consult the author ie, the Holy Spirit or your teacher (the church) to teach you.

....but of what use is your teacher's interpretation if it differs from the authors'?

italo: Oh, I see. It's trolling time.

Jesus is called Son of Man and Son of God. Is man God?

He's also called Son of David. Do you call David God?

Going by your perverted reasoning, David would deserve all the adoration you give God since we know that Jesus' Father is God. No?

I know you'll like to turn the whole thing over.
For your questions.

Is Jesus truly the son of David? Yes.
Why: He is a descendant of David.

Is Jesus truly the son of God? Yes.
Why: He came out from God.

Thats not trolling.
You're the one trolling.....perhaps, because you have no reasonable answer.

Jesus, (referring to the bread He broke) He said, 'this is my body'

You did not disbelieve Him?

Why do you seem to disbelieve Him when He said anyone that does God's will is His mother?

.....or was Jesus lying/joking when He said that?

Syncan:

I did not say anything contrary to the commandment. God gave the commandment in Ex20:4-6, for the avoidance of doubt, God showed what he abhorred by commanding the making of Images,(the cherubs, the seraphs etc) yet never commanding the worshiping.

Did God abhor Killing?
Yes, He did.
Yet, He commanded people to kill.....does that change the fact that He abhors it?

Thats left to you.

Syncan:
Yours is different. Something Paul clearly says "is not permitted in churches" you say it is "not forbidden" Show me where he encouraged a woman to preach in the church? The examples you gave are women helping out in the homes, he never prevented them from teaching their children or household

is the bold another infallible interpretation of the RCC.
If it is, I'll recommend a more comphrensive study.

Need I tell you: Priscilla did not teach her child, neither did she teach Her household....neither did the whole thing happen at home!

Guess where it all happened?
It happened in the synagogue at Ephesus...

....Need I tell you another awesome fact?
Apostle Paul himself took them with Him to the church.....to help Him.

Syncan:
nor their being of help to him automatically become "preaching in the church".

Paul was teaching the word of God, He took Aquilla and Priscilla to help him (In Christ just as he indicated in the Corinthian epistle).....now, do you think the the 'help in Christ was making tents'?

No, they were helping him teach the 'word of God' as He was doing before He left them there to continue.

How are we sure they were teachers, they taught Apollos what he did not know 'more perfectly'.....

Again, women teachers are 'not forbidden', If they were, Priscilla will never teach... they are only forbidden to 'usurp authority over a man....they should be submissive'

Syncan:
As per your question, permit me to leave your insinuations to you, for I am careful what I say even in arguments, but just so you do not say I did not answer yours:

This with the one I asked you, is a typical illustration where private interpretation of scripture by the unlearned falls short. Scripture interpretation is not just a literal based venture, it requires knowledge of the speaker/writer and things that may have influence on him. St. Peter made it clear that it is not all that Paul writes that is hard to understand, neither is it all he wrote that is literal (2Pet 3:16). He actually confirms what Paul wrote, when he differentiated between his words and that of the lord 1Cor 7:12.
Moses told the people to give writ of divorce... it is scripture, yet Jesus told the people it is due to their hard hardheartedness (Mk 10:5). We now cannot disparage scripture because of what Moses wrote for Jesus Interpreted scripture and has given the church(with peter as the chief shepherd) the key to do same. It is the church now that is the pillar and foundation of truth 1 tim 3:15.

sorry, but bro Syncan, you did not answer my question.

italo: How in the world does "study" mean "apply your personal interpretation?"

Paul tells Timothy (an individual, not the church) to study.

However, I'm not disputing the fact that it is advisable to consult the church for interpretation of any 'difficult' part....and even other parts.

italo: Catholic doctrine declares Mary "the Mother of God."

Is it right or wrong? That, we are 'obliged' to answer.

To start to say we must declare the "crowds" as "the mother of God" is nothing more than trolling.

If you want us to trade silly questions, there are 1001 I can ask you in return but I doubt that is the way to go.

This in no silly question neither is it a joke.

Jesus was not joking when he said those things neither was He speaking 'fallibly'....He was not also deceiving people.

It is gross hypocrisy to accept that the 'communion bread' as the true body of Christ when Jesus said that and refer to His followers that He called His mother as 'crowd'.

If you have declared Mary 'mother of God', other women that truly obey God are also 'Mother of God' because when Jesus declared that, he meant His TRUE mother....and they deserve the same respect/adoration/devotion as Mary.



Infact, lemme ask a question.

The Nuns in covents, are they also the 'Mother of God'??

italo: There is no mention of "individual" reading or interpretation there.

In fact, 2 Peter 1:20 condemns private interpretation.

So, was Apostle Paul wrong in his letter to timothy when He said this in 2 Timothy 2:15

Carefully study to present thyself approved
unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.


Or was he speaking 'fallibly' in that part?

Syncan:


From the very beginning I preached honesty, Our Lord himself gives back to those who ask him questions, only with ulterior motives, what they deserve.

You look at a post that says "for it is not permitted unto them to speak(in the churches)"; and you tell me "it is not forbidden" quoting for me passages of women who rendered help in their homes. If you can answer this question honestly, you won't ask me that question again.

I'm being honest in my answers to your questions.

Deuteronomy 4:23 says

Beware lest thou ever forget the covenant of
the Lord thy God, which he hath made with
thee: and make to thyself a graven likeness of those things which the Lord hath forbid to be made:

Yet, you said images are not forbidden.


Women teachers are not forbidden.
If they were, Priscilla won't have taught Apollos neither will Apostle Paul refer to her as His helper in Christ.

Be honest, you called for it.


Now, my question again.
I hope you will answer this time....I'm even beginning to wonder if you're scared of answering.

Could Paul be wrong in those teachings of
his because you indicated that he's fallible
in that part....hence the bible should not be
trusted in such parts.
Is that what you mean?

Syncan:


So you doubt these:

1Tim2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence".

1Cor14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law".

Is it that he was wrong?

He is not wrong, however, women are not forbidden to teach!

The forbidden point is 'usurping' 'authority over a man'

Remember Priscilla, Aquilla's wife in acts 18, she, alongside her husband, taught Apollos 'more perfectly'.....and Apollos learned.

Appllos, a fellow teacher/preacher with Paul was taught 'more perfectly' by a woman.


Infact, Paul referred to Priscilla (and Aquilla) as His helpers in Jesus Christ. (Romans 16:3)

Are you ok?


You have not answered my question....but I have answered yours.

Can you answer mine now?

Could Paul be wrong in those teachings of his because you indicated that he's fallible in that part....hence the bible should not be trusted in such parts.
Is that what you mean?

woky:
A woman is a man's mother if she carried him
in her womb.. If u blv that Jesus christ is God
then Mary is the mother of God.

Syncan:

Adsonstone, When you are told to write the name of your mum, please write all the women you've called mum in this world, young and old, Ok.

Next question pls.

That does not answer my question.

Jesus said this:

Matthew 12:49
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father,
that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister,
and mother.

(I'm trying as much as possible to quote the douay-rheims version of the bible since Italo believes thr KJV is mutilation of the original bible)

I did not doubt Jesus...and I can NEVER doubt Him.

If you have declared Mary 'mother of God' other women too should be declared 'mother of God' eg Nuns, Priestly Sisters.....

Stop being partial/hypocritical.


Or do you believe women that do the will of the Father are not Jesus' true mother....in other words, do you doubt Jesus in that passage?

POPE II:
May u rot in hell

Please.

italo: Challenge the one who said there are essential and non-essential doctrines but cant show where the Bible says so. Why are you challenging me alone? Are you afraid of the OP?

Dont be an enemy of the Catholic Church but a friend of truth.

I have more than enough answers for you but if you show such insincerity of purpose and partiality, no answers will be enough for you.

have I lied/become an 'enemy of truth' to have said the obvious?

(I did not say you called me that ooo....before you turn the whole thing in another direction)

Regarding the bold, I'd say 'calm down' and lets do this amicably.

First, someone said something.....exactly the same thing the Rcc has once said.
You, being a member of the Rcc, did not consider your part of the same thing yet, you are bent on hearing proofs from the other person without bringing yours when asked....thats partial and a sincere man wont/should not do that.

Next, you referred to those who believe Peter's life teachings are in those letters as dull, yet, you cannot bring out just two teachings that is not in the letters.

Show that you are honest and saying the truth.

Provide two of Peter's teachings outside those letters and make the 'dull' ones wise.

italo:

I prefer "agreement."




it could be interpreted inaccurately! To say what you have in inverted commas above could mean that Tradition came from Scripture...and that would be a LIE.

There's nothing in Sacred Scripture that contradict anything in Sacred Tradition. Everything in Sacred Tradition and/or the principles behind them are in Sacred Scripture to one degree or another. They are in Scripture, not because they were derived from Scripture, but because Scripture was born by Tradition.

In the Old Testament era, people already worshipped God before Gen 1.1 was ever written. In the new Testament, the Church existed for years before and of the Apostles ever put pen to paper.

And when these men wrote, they wrote based on Church Tradition - practise. So to interpret Scripture in isolation from Tradition is to take it out of context. You will often come to the wrong conclusion.

This is as clear as i can make my position for now.

alright, I get your point.

Scripture also assures us as individuals that we can read and understand it....hence, we wont misinterpret.

Are/is the scripture(s) wrong to have said that?

@ Italo, Syncan and Woky.

Back to Mary.

If only Mary is referred to as 'mother of God', what happens to other women Jesus called his mother?
Should you not declare them 'mother of God' too?
Including the Nuns in covents, Priestly Sisters....etc....they are entitled to being the 'mother of God'.

italo:

Ehn...challenge person wey talk say essential and non-essential doctrines dey na...

If it were a Catholic that spoke such heresy, you wouldn't let him rest.

the catholic church says
"All in the church must preserve UNITY IN ESSENTIALS"

Oladeegbu said...
'some essential doctrines' you implied essential and non-essential doctrines frm his statement.....and you've been heckling him to provide proof of where Jesus taught that.

Now, I ask you: (and I also imply)
since the Rcc says 'unity in essentials' there must also be non-essentials which needs not be 'united' in.
....and I ask:

what exactly are these essentials the rcc is talking abt?


.....and I want you to show me where Jesus taught such 'heresy' (as put in bold)

Lest I forget, you have not provided even one of Peter's 'life teachings' not in those letters...(rememember I requested a minimum of two)

you were the one who said the people that believe his life teachings are in those two short letters are dull....perhaps, you'd make them wise by honoring my request.

italo: @ adsonstone, I dont exactly know what you mean by "compromise."

I remember telling you that we must see Scripture through the eyes of Tradition...since, even Scripture was created by Tradition.

There can be no compromise when it comes to doctrine.

compromise=agreement.

What we reached a compromise on was 'tradition has its roots in scripture'
lie?

By the way, you said the bold but you did not explain.

Tradition created scripture....you mean tradition made the prophets, apostles and other inspired men write the scriptures.

Syncan:

St. Paul...not me... differentiated between his word and the lord's word to him. Why did he do that amidst his preaching, is left for I and you to think about.

no, you havent answered my question.

Since Paul was fallible in that statement (and could be wrong)....
......should that part of the bible be doubted?

Syncan:
Now:

Do women preach in your church? considering 1Tim2:12, 1Cor14:34.

Yes, women preach in my church.

woky: ok

what is your problem with/about Mary being the Mother of God??

No, that's not my problem.
Read the post I mentioned that point again.