₦airaland Forum

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!

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?

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?

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?

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: OK

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

You tell us.

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.

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: 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.

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?

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?

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.

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: 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?

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?

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: i don't quite agree one should swallow everything dished out by the church elders.

Zikkyy: But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

Zikkyy: If you want my honest view, then i say it's a possibility. My very little understanding of church history gives the impression that what was included in scriptures was arrived at based on simple majority (or influenced majority ), so do we have the complete scriptures? i don't know. Maybe there were some other letters by apostle Paul not in wide circulation or were destroyed (poorly handled) prior to the time the church compiled the bible.



What's my own if Mark was not written by Mark? It's also possible that the "Acts of Peter" was scriptural. The thing is i don't have info to substantiate these possibilities. i no dey there, so I have taken a decision to accept what was presented.

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

debosky: This question is redundant but I'll answer it yet again. The Spirit does not bring confusion - the confusion is based on incomplete understanding, selective reading or a number of other deficiencies.

So who is it that is qualified to teach the true doctrine of Christ, out of the millions? Adeboye, Pastor Chris, Goshen360, you, or someone else?

debosky: The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible.

How do you know this? I find no mention of this in the Bible, can you show me where it says that "The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible?"

Also when did the Holy Spirit move the "early church" to compile the bible? When did the Holy Spirit tell you that the book of "Mark" is scripture but the "Acts of Peter" is not?

debosky: No I don’t - there should always be a common starting point - for Christians that is Jesus’ death that gives us salvation. That doesn’t require any interpretation.

It does! Salvation and the means of salvation mean many different things to many Christians. We still cant agree on how we are saved through Jesus death. How do we come to know what God teaches about this?

My answer: listen to the Catholic Church. Your answer: YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE VERSES. Right?

debosky: This is possible, but what’s your point?

As I said earlier simply saying ‘the Holy Spirit’ taught me isn’t proof that the Holy Spirit indeed taught you.

Exactly, that's why I say it is not the Holy Spirit that is teaching all you protestants your millions of contradictory doctrines. You are teaching yourselves based on private interpretation and possibly a misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit.

And your doctrines are FALSE DOCTRINES.

Zikkyy: You said it yourself,there were already heretics in the time of the apostles. What happens if & when heretics led the church at some point in time? or what happens if some of their teachings somehow found their way into the church at some point in time? The church is made up of humans and so can make mistakes.

You are the one with a problem here, not me. I believe heretics never led the Catholic Church at any time and their teachings can never find their way into Catholic doctrine. You believe these could have happened because the Church is made up of humans that can err. My submission to you is that, given your opinion, the Church could have been teaching heresy on any particular doctrine and could have even filled "the bible" with heretical books. How can you then be a Christian, when the book you claim to learn christianity from could be full of heresy...for all you know.

Zikkyy: I told you before, when assessing the teachings of the apostles, i don't consider infallibility. it's either you accept their teachings or reject everything. There's no basis for considering some of their teachings as likely truth and some as possibly false.

How do you know that what you are accepting unconditionally are the teachings of the apostles. They could be heresies included in the bible by the heretical people that could have led the Church (which you said above) when the Bible was compiled and canonized. Example: how do you know that Mark wrote "Mark?" How do you know the book was not sneaked into scripture by possible heretical leaders of the Church at some point?

Zikkyy: The church today relies on the foundation laid by the apostles and will to a large extent be measured by what was laid down by the apostles. If the church today teaches doctrines that totally contradict that of the apostles, are you going to accept it (because the church is infallible)? if you will not accept such teachings, then the church today is not infallible, and if you do accept then the apostles were not infallible.

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. It is like asking "if the holy taught me one thing yesterday and teaches me an opposite thing today, would I accept it? The answer is that the Holy Spirit cannot do that...so also the Catholic Church, empowered by the Holy Spirit to teach men, cannot do that.

Zikkyy: Can one accept Christ and reject the bible? The other option for me would have been to reject the canon & Christ. If i chose to accept Christ then i have to accept the scriptures that were made available. It's one package.

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

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. 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?

Zikkyy: I said its too late for the question. Now we have churches not under the authority/control of the RCC and they have no intention of placing themselves under the authority of the RCC or accepting any of its teachings.

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

Zikkyy: True. The question is, who is correct.

I say THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. What do you say?

If we are to put the OP into practise, we would see it crumbling bit by bit. That's not to say it is totally wrong. There there is a lot in it that is correct, but a lot is so ambiguous and inaccurate.

In John 6:35, Jesus declares: "I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE."

Some believe, in that passage, he was talking about "holy communion, which is the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ."

Others believe, he was talking about "holy communion, but it is only a SYMBOL of the body and blood of Christ.

And yet, there are those who believe he was merely talking about "BELIEVING in him."

What does your "infallible Church" teach?

And what does the Holy Spirit teach you?

What answer do you get when you use your WWJD or WDJS method?

Dont say this is not a fundamental matter because Jesus said in verses 53 & 54: "53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." Surely a matter that concerns salvation or damnation has to be fundamental to us Christians.

*1ST LADY OF THE LUNATICS NOTICED AND IGNORED*

THE FULL LETTER.

Dear Father Nicolás,
I received with great joy the kind letter you sent me, in your name and that of the Society of Jesus, on the occasion of my election to the See of Peter, in which you assure me of your prayers for me and my apostolic ministry as well as your full disposition to continue serving - unconditionally - the Church and the Vicar of Christ according to the teachings of St. Ignatius Loyola.My heartfelt thanks for this sign of affection and closeness, which I am happy to reciprocate, asking the Lord to illuminate and accompany all Jesuits, so that faithful to the charism received and following in the footsteps of the saints of our beloved Order, they may be evangelical leaven in the world in their pastoral action, but above all in the witness of a life totally dedicated to the service of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, seeking unceasingly the glory of God and the good of souls.
With these sentiments, I ask all Jesuits to pray for me and to entrust me to the loving protection of the Virgin Mary, our Mother in heaven, while as a sign of God's abundant graces, I give you the Apostolic Blessing with special affection, which I also extend to all those who cooperate with the Society of Jesus in her activities, those who benefit from her good deeds and participate in her spirituality.Francis

Of course, the lunatic would conveniently ignore the bolded.

sege**s, f**sbel

*LUNATICS DETECTED AND IGNORED*

F**sbel

*FAMOUS LUNATIC ON RAMPAGE AGAIN*

We are certain already. So nothing will make us decide God isnt real.

I think thats purely rational.

Its like asking you what it will take for you to believe you didnt open this thread.

Lest we digress from the main issue at hand.

We are talking about how to know the true interpretation of scripture.

Goshen360 says: let scripture interprete scripture. Italo says: listen to God's (Catholic) Church.

What say ye?

Bidam: A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it.

I believe we are not here on this thread to make wild allegations (as is common here on nairaland and even elsewhere).

I am talking about what The Catholic Church teaches, not what one or two or even many "Catholics" say.

I am not aware of any Catholic Church teaching or official document that say that the 'gift of tongues' has been done away with.

If you know of such, please provide the evidence, if not, I will take this as another wild allegation and move on.

*bear in mind that all of Catholic Doctrine is well documented and mostly available on the internet, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church*

Bidam: What say ye? Is it scriptural or not?

Of course, we believe the 'gift of tongues' is scriptural.

What might not be scriptural is pretending to have the gift of tongues and blabbering rubbish when you do not have such gift... And you know those who are mostly guilty of this.

It's what I have been trying to tell folks for a long time.

For them, Mary, the saints, souls in purgatory, the pope, cardinals etc are just either dead and imaginary people or they are just leaders of a deceitful organization.

For us, all these people are members of our (spiritual) family and we have very strong bonds with them. Sometimes we have even stronger bonds with them than we have with our earthly families (or some of them).

Any insults on them are probably even worse than insults on our earthly families.

debosky: Secondly, I don't believe we have to practice uniformity on each and every issue - for example some will support drinking in moderation, while others will support total abstinence - I believe the fundamentals of faith should be strong and held on to. Other issues that are secondary should be treated as secondary.

What if one group thinks drinking alcohol is a sin and is a fundamental issue, while the other group thinks that it is not a sin if done in moderation and it is a secondary issue? Who decides what is "fundamental" and what is "secondary?" Who is speaking God's mind?

YOU WOULD RESORT TO YOUR VARIOUS PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS, WOULDNT YOU?

debosky: Finally, the truth is that the enemy seeks to cause confusion and human beings will look for teachings that meet their own individual tastes.

You know this yet you allow the enemy succeed through you.

debosky: Sticking to 'Catholic authority' will not prevent that as such erroneous teaching can still creep in.

You cant just declare this. Show us how sticking to Catholic teaching will not prevent us having erroneous teaching.

Zikkyy: I agree with this.

Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

If the could teach you a lie, then it is also possible that the Church could have lied about the Canon of Scripture.

Maybe "Mark" wasnt written by Mark... And maybe "The Acts of Peter" was scriptural but the Catholic Church dubiously threw it out.

Have you considered the implication of that?

There would be no Christian faith if the Catholic Church could teach error.

Zikkyy: well....am not Goshen360 and others, but i don't quite agree one should swallow everything dished out by the church elders. for me it all comes down to the issue of the church being seen as infallible. this is not year 50A.D, the apostles are out of the picture, so what is the church elders reading that i don't have access to? (unless you are telling me they have some documents in there that i will never get to see).

My brother, humans and fashion may change but the things of God remain the same. If the Church was infallible in 50AD, then it will remain infallible to the end of time. That is why the apostles laid hands on their successors to give them the Spirit in a special way. Except your are telling me that the Holy Spirit that made the Church infallible has 'washed off'

So make up your mind. Was the Church infallible in 50AD?

Zikkyy: Should the catholic church be the one to interpret God's teaching? if the catholic church is the one interpreting God's teaching, there will be no other denomination. It's already too late for that so you need to rephrase your question.

Even in the time of the apostles, there were already heretics (what you call denominations) teaching the wrong thing in the guise of being "church." But the (Catholic) Church continued to teach God's word and declared the Canon of Scripture and you accepted.

There is NO denomination. There is only ONE Church that teaches ONE faith.

If one group says "Jesus is God"; and another says "Jesus is not God," can they both be "denominations" of God's church? NO. God does not teach such confusion.

ONE Church is true, the rest are not.

debosky: My view is that scriptural interpretation is wholly reliant on the Holy Spirit who teaches all things.

There are millions of people and "churches" all over the world, teaching differing and contradictory doctrines "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Is it that there are millions of '"holy spirits" or it is the one Holy Spirit that is teaching all of them different things and causing confusion?

What about 'scripture compilation?' Who was it reliant on? The Holy Spirit? When then, did the Holy Spirit compile the Bible? When did the Holy Spirit tell you that the book of "Mark" is scripture but the "Acts of Peter" is not?

debosky: In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture.

You mean 'your interpretation of a part of scripture needs to be contextual and not contradictory to your interpretation of other parts of scripture.'

Adeboye and/or Pastor Chris could also see their own interpretation (which might be contradictory to yours) of the first part as scriptural and not contradictory to their own interpretation (which might again be the opposite of yours) of the other parts of scripture...

...And you, Adeboye and Pastor Chris would all say that the Holy Spirit has taught you the truth, while saying contradictory things.

debosky: I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion.

Yes... Your problem is that you dont know where to go for the proper interpretation.

[quote author=debosky]I disagree with this wholeheartedly because this places the Catholic Church in a position of authority not given to it by Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit teaches all things, not the Catholic Church.

John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

John 14:26: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

"Who was Jesus talking to in those verses? Everybody or his apostles - the leaders of his (Catholic) Church?

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to his Church to teach it all things so that the Church can teach the people of God.

debosky: Now, I appreciate where your view point may originate from - you believe the Catholic Church holds a 'direct' connection to the early church through its 'apostolic succession' and its role in 'compiling' the bible. That's would be all well and good if rightful interpretation was based simply on being 'connected' to the early church. But it isn't.

It is not merely a "direct connection." The Catholic Church is the "early Church." The Church only began to be called "Catholic" around the year 100 to distinguish it from the many heretical groups that were springing up. The Church that wrote the New Testament and taught the people of old in biblical times is the same (Catholic) Church that compiled the Bible and declared what was and what wasnt Scriptural in the fourth century (long long after the apostles had died). That same Church continue's to teach the people of God today. If you believe their 1st and 4th century teachings and declarations to be God's teachings and declarations, why do you doubt them in the 21st century?

debosky: After all, in the early church (more precisely early church groups)there were teachings that had to be challenged by Paul and others - my point is that no church group is immune from wrong teaching simply by historical precedent or connection.

Please show me a "teaching" that was challenged by anybody within the Church. I am unaware of such.

debosky: Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping.

Firstly, I dont know what you mean by "church grouping." My Lord, Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church that teaches ONE Faith. Secondly, the Catholic Church compiled the Bible because it has the authority to do so. That is why we Catholics believe that it is the inspired word of God. You protestants also believe the Bible is God's word because the Catholic Church declared it so...BUT YOU WONT LIKE TO ADMIT IT. The Bible gets its validity from the authority of God's Church which compiled it.

debosky: I understand that Catholics may disagree with this, claiming that the bible itself was 'written' by the Catholic Church and hence cannot be placed above 'Church teachings', but this is inaccurate in my view. The Catholic church clearly didn't 'write' the OT, neither did it 'write' the books of the NT - what transpired in essence was a common recognition among church groups (led by the Holy Spirit) about which books were indeed inspired, followed by 'formal' approval by councils and nothing more.

How do you know that there was a common recognition among "church groups" led by the Holy Spirit? Dont you know that there were hot debates about several books? The Catholic Church wrote the new teastament and canonized the Bible with its Councils. You deliberately refused to mention that it was Catholic Church councils that canonized the Bible. Where were your imaginary "church groupings" then?

debosky: Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son.

What you are practicing is what the millions of people and "churches" teaching contradictory doctrines are practicing. You protestants have been doing it for 500years and every year, the confusion, division and heresy only gets worse. I never taught I'd see a "gay church" but ALAS! Cant you see that it is the devil that has sown this pride in your hearts that make you think every man can teach himself?

Who do you think is responsible for this division? Jesus or satan?

I know my questions are many but I would appreciate if you could answer them.