₦airaland Forum

accountable:
The commentary sheds light indeed and perfectly explains why they are not omnipresent.
: present in all places at all times( merriamwebster)
It explains that they are present with God continually through 'inward contemplation'. That's not omnipresence neither are they sharing at all in it.
I guess that the edifying aim of the commentary is to encourage us to inward contemplation so as to continually possess a sense of God's presence, that doesn't make us omnipresent.
When angels are in heaven they are in heaven, when in earth they are in earth. They cannot physically be in both places at same time.

angels are not physical being, unless they take a physical appearance, they are spiritual entities, that is why d angel both sees God continually, guide d kind and still rejoice for each sinner dat repent, contemplation put d angel in d presence of God, his awareness is a totally different matter, it is a gift of his nature, sum1 i blive i'll relieve afta dis life.

dolphinheart:
Yep, even the holy spirit was catholic.


So what happened to the 7 inspired books .


So the church changed there language from Greek to Latin right? Bet it was the holy spirit that gave the command.....or probably it was the ruling goverment of the day that influenced such decision. Catholic church had been known to romance the ruling goverment of the day.

actually, latin was the common language at the time, not because of any 'romance', by that time the empire had been moved from rome to constatinople (where greek was still spoken), the change in language had nothing to do wit d government of d day, d government was out of rome.

dolphinheart:
From the inspired word of God.

My previous statement : "just saying that all man requires for salvation was written down"

What the scriptures says:
2 Tim 3:16:17
16 All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17[b] That the man of God [/b]may be perfect[/b], throughly furnished unto all good works.
Maybe you dnt like the reproof and instruction in righteousness the scriptures is giving you and you want something else.
Maybe you are searching for something other than perfection and to be fully/throughly/completely furnished unto ALL good works. You want something better than good.

there is a point u seem ignorant of, at that time the new testamement was still been written! They were just letters then! The scripture that passage is talking about is d one it says timothy knows from Childhood, it seems u didnt read d whole passage. It is talking abt the Old Testament alone! That was d only available known scripture. If u apply ur funny logic that means d old testament contains everything needed by a Christian.
The bible doesn't say so!

What the bible says is pretty different! It says it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
It says it is profitable for all those thing, it doesn't say it is sufficient! The gathering of d faithful is also profitable but not necesary sufficient.

The bible doesnt say all u need for salvation is written. It says d scripture (in d right context d old testament) is profitable for salvation.

accountable:
Please educate us. But don't speak outside the scriptures.

this post is a charade.

Your friend above base an entire critique upon an assumption, he assumed that the teaching is unscriptural! He didnt say "i search d scripture but couldnt find it, can u guys xplain?" no! Instead he started with a grave assumption.

Sorry dear, if sum1 doesn't wish to know but instead to teach abt an issue he knows nothing abt, then i'll kindly xcuse myself.

accountable:
Presence my brother, is different from awareness.

*[[Mat 18:10]] Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Do note the IN HEAVEN. The angels beheld the face of the father in heaven IN HEAVEN. IN HEAVEN, would not have been necessary if they where beholding from the earth. Please read it again.

i see the english is confusing u.
Matthew 18:10
New International Version (NIV)

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven
always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Berean Study Bible

See that you do not look
down on any of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Berean Literal Bible

See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I say to you that their angels in the heavens continually behold the face my of Father, who is in the heavens.

New American Standard
Bible

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.


So as u can sed the angels of those kid continually see d face of God always!

I also took d liberty of giving u a commentary on it so u can see d historic understanding of d passage.

This
doctrine (which, as of very
solemn import, the Lord
introduces with his usual
formula, I say unto you), that
each soul has assigned to it
by God a special angel is
grounded on this, and
supported by many other
passages of Scripture (comp.
Hebrews 1:14; Psalm 34:7;
Psalm 91:11; Luke 15:7, 10).
It has been questioned how
angels can be said to
succour us on earth, while
in heaven they are always
looking on the face of the
Father. The difficulty has
been answered, among
others, by St. Gregory, who
writes, "They never so go
forth apart from the vision
of God, as to be deprived of
the joys of interior
contemplation. They are
both sent from him, and
stand by him too, since both
in that they are
circumscribed, they go forth,
and in this that they are also
entirely present, they never
go away. Thus they at the
same time always behold
the Father's face, and yet
come to us; because they
both go forth to us in a
spiritual presence, and yet
keep themselves there,
whence they had gone out,
by virtue of interior
contemplation" ('Moral.,'
2:3).

accountable:
The saints and angels in heaven are aware of events taking place on earth.

Heb 12:1_2) WhereforeWherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
The saints in heaven are the crowd of WITNESSES mentioned here.the chapter before (heb 11) already gave us some names among these witnesse.They are watching . the know when a battle is won, when one gets saved, even when somebody backslides

thank u for making the point for me. The host of heaven is watching, they know wen d battles is won, wen sum1 is saved or backslides, if the are watch as u say, do they suddenly bcom blind wen a christians prays or ask them for prayers?

accountable:
Blessed Michael, Archangel,
defend us in the hour of hellish battle;
be our sethguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God restrain him, we humbly pray;
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God, thrust, down to hell, Satan,
and with him the other wicked spirits
who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.amen( prayer of saint Michael)


Are u saying that all the saints who died and are in heaven can hear us from heaven when we mention their names? And that they are present with us?

i tink u should read heb 12:1

accountable:
A single angel can only be in one place at a time. Angels can be present in heaven and on assignment on earth at the same time because they are very many. But Mary is one. So how can she be in all the catholic churches and also in heaven at the same time?

not exactly, Jesus once said of little chidren, "their angels right now see d face of God" how com their guardian angel can both b wit d kids and see d face of God.

The concept of time and space is a limitation of d present universe, it has little effect on d immaterial universe.

Scholar8200:
The dissenters were mentioned:
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:5
Not the apostles but some pharisees! They had believed but like Simon the sorcerer still had issues!

and their debate was brought to an end

Besides, you may make fun but thank God they sans your bias knew where the Inspiration for their decision came from- not ANY man but the Spirit!

i never disputed d fact that d spirit is in charge, when catholic discuss infalibility they must as a rule admit that d holy spirit is in charge. I do not dispute it, it is a fact. D question is how did d holyspirit put an end to d debate? It is thru peter.

The passage James referred to was to buttress the fact that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles too:
Acts 15:14,15a
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

now u are confirming my points

Yes and none of those experiences were relayed in the letter!

The bone of contention was - NO CIRCUMCISION AS A CONDITION FOR SALVATION and Paul already knew this (also by Inspiration Galatians 2:4-6) hence the contention with those who said so (Acts 15:2)

letter to d galatians and d council in jerusalem which happened first?

[quote author=Scholar8200 post=40009778]In vain do we find Paul alluding to ANY unique authority handed to ANY apostle over the others! In fact Peter was even the one who mentioned that Paul was given some revelations which were hard to be understood!!! Now if he was the 'head' (whatever you mean by that), we should shudder that he was bypassed at this point![/quotd] did peter imply he was ignorant of those revelation? He simply told people to be careful as some ignorant people like misinterpreting d writtings of Christ they find hard to understand.

Rather I will say it was because they were with one accord under the Spirit's headship and they could therefore say:
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, Acts 15;28a

they were in one acord after they had debated heatedly.

And that they were in one accord see:
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, Again, NOBODY is singled out like you are doing!

how did they get to be of one accord? At the bging there was no one accord! The agreements only flowed after peter spoke!

Shed more light on this piece stating clearly:
Where Peter acted alone and the others recognising that authority respected sans questioning.

i already explain this, in d council peter said "we believe..." in a place where people had varied opinion, he claimed to speak for all! Nobody stood up to say i disagree, not euen d pharisees! He ended d debate, James said as symeon has spoken! His teaching is unchallenged an form d basis for whatever will b james judgement. Peter didnt need to conduct a census or ask 4 agreement b4 saying "we believe...".

P.S. The scenario below does not agree with Peter having a 'unique authority'

Now the apostles (special messengers) and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard [with astonishment] that the Gentiles (heathen) also had received and accepted and welcomed the Word of God [the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God].
2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party [certain Jewish Christians] found fault with him [separating themselves from him in a hostile spirit, opposing and disputing and contending with him],
3 Saying, Why did you go to uncircumcised men and [even] eat with them?
4 But Peter began [at the beginning] and narrated and explained to them step by step [the whole list of events]. He said:
5 I was in the town of Joppa praying, and [falling] in a trance I saw a vision of something coming down from heaven, like a huge sheet lowered by the four corners; and it descended until it came to me.
Acts 11:1-5

He had to explain himself and thankfully he was led by the Spirit - the One that truly represents and reveals Christ to, in and through the believers

good peter just ate wit d jews and baptised them even though some seemed against it, he had recieve a new revelation and even d xtians came that he might explain and teach d new directive he is following. He immediately did. His revelation is correct whether or not they assent to it.

Scholar8200:
What Peter said agreed with Paul and Barnabas' testimony and also agreed with the earlier prophecies! No sweeping fiat from any man was final!

Besides, James reference to Peter does not suggest a belittling of the testimony of others. If Peter had said something contrary to scripture, he would have been corrected like Paul had to do when Peter acted contrary to the truth! Whither your unique authority!

actually what peter said was contrary to d know scriptures, d know scripture was d old testament and it proscribes circumcision, peter said lay no burden! He said that without alluding to any scripture and james certainly did not try to correct him instead he said 'as peter has spoken'!
Pauls own contribution was interesting because he didnt try to instruct anyone he and barnabas simply went on relating their experiences! It was peter who decleared "we believe". And brought d heated debate to an end. D pharisee didnt ask him were is dat in d bible? D bible is d only authority how dare u teach doctrine without it.

The tenor of your post suggests that Paul had no right rebuking Peter because the latter had a unique authority when even Paul said

i never infered d above, when someone practice wat is different frm what he teaches then he has to be called to order irrespective of wu he is. Dat takes nothing away from his teaching authority.

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

how does this concern d discussion? Paul went to jerusalem to ensure his teaching was in tandem with others, he was approved.


On a different not it is interest dat paul call peter an apostle to d jews even though d said peter was d one who opened d door for d gentiles.

accountable:
No, what started in 1870 is
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

juliano has already shown sevaral documents that shows d teaching predate vatican 1, but strangely enough you don't care. That show u are not honest.

The last line places a curse. That is dogmatic definition. U r not longer free to disbelieve the pope.... Even when it is contrary to scripture. Before then a catholic could choose not to believe in papal infallibility. That is when u were no longer free to question papal teachings. But The apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinised

it seems u didnt read d declaration well, when d pope speaks ex cathedra he cannot contradict d scripture, he like d apostles and councils before are guided by the holyspirit and cant teach error.
As i said earlier apostolic teaching arent subject to pick and chose either u accept or u dont.

Bobbysworld28:
Teaching can be oral, in writing or in actions. Peter acted in error and Paul called him out. Cheers

people can teach on thing and behave differently, infallibity is an issue of outright teaching whether in words or in letter. Actions and behaviours are totally different issues. JESUS once said to obey d pharisee but not follow their example, there is a difference btw a weakness in character and an error in teaching, it is the later that we discuss under infallibility.

accountable:
When James said 'simon had related' he spoke in reference to happened at the house of Cornelius ( how God at first did visit the gentiles) not what peter had just spoken . he was not in any way acknowledging peters authority.

hahaha, what simon related/said is written right there in acts 15 and that put an end to d argument even James went on to refer to it.

accountable:
U r derailing, the doctrine of papal infallibility was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870. The writing of Ignatius do not qualify as scripture do they?

and ignatuis show that the doctine has been taught in d early church, it was define late becos d protestant heresy came late.

accountable:
The First Vatican Council (Latin: Concilium Vaticanum Primum) was convoked by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1868, after a period of planning and preparation that began on 6 December 1864.[1] This twentieth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church,[2] held three centuries after the Council of Trent, opened on 8 December 1869 and adjourned on 20 October 1870.[1] Unlike the five earlier General Councils held in Rome, which met in the Lateran Basilica and are known as Lateran Councils, it met in the Vatican Basilica, hence its name. Its best-known decision is its definition of papal infallibility, strongly promoted by the Archibishop Luigi Natoli.

and d teachg of trinity was FORMALLY defined in d 4th cent even though it had been taught long before. Wat is ur point?

accountable:
I cannot see what u r thanking God for. The freedom to live by Gods word was taken away from u in 1870 when the catholic church officially pronounced that the pope is infallible, and u r thanking God? Before then u had a choice, u could choose what to believe us not without been called a heretic.

the truth of God are not issues for pick and chose. You either believe or u don't. Wen u reject that which is true and teach sumtin diffeqent then u are a heretic.
And that didnt start in d 18th century

The traditions u r talking about is only a decption. It is not the same as the tradition mentioned in scripture neither are they in the same context

so all the early christians wrote wrote after d apostles wer liars?

Scholar8200:
It is instructive that:
1. The Holy Spirit superintended the meeting and was given the recognition and Priority in mention Acts 15:28

it is interesting dat u note this point. D apostles nd elders had a council were there was heated argument, and at the end they wrotd 'it seem gud to d holyspirit and to us...' they belive their heated council was led by d spirit and thus had d power to make laws for d church. Pretty interesting

2. The guidance was subjected to Scriptural test before adoption:
Acts 15:15,16
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

3. Hence no teaching can supersede/substitute or stand at par in authority with the Scriptures

lol, cant u see that d passage that was quoted has nothing to do wit d eating of unclean animals and circumcision, d passage has no link to d laws dat were made. The bible shows us where those laws come from. Act 15:8-11 it was based on peter teaching not to lay any burder on them based on his xperience dat they had been saved and have d spirit. Both peter and paul in acts 15 related personal experiences not scripture.
The laws made in Jerusalem certainly had the traditions (teaching) of some apostle even witout outright scriptural backing.

Scholar8200:
The problem I was trying to address was the error brought up by Jolliano. Besides, Peter spoke (vs 7), Paul and Barnabas also spoke (in vs 12) and James drew the conclusion. No superiority here!!!

there are a few point u are negleting, d arguement originated in churches under paul he couldnt settle it, d debate became heated nobody jumped in to end it but Peter. After he spoke no one objected. notice,
1. Peter uses the
first person personal prounoun in the plural. "We believe..." Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all.
2. When James stands up to speak, the first thing he says after getting the attention of the Council is, “Symeon has related…” In other words, Peter has spoken… He repeats what Peter has already said definitively. Then, rather than speaking for all, St. James says, "It is my
judgment...".
3. When St. James gives his pastoral judgment, in verse 19, his judgment was that the Church ought to bind the Gentiles
to four laws:
... abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.
But notice what happens
immediately thereafter, in verses 22-28:
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders,... We
have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.”
Three sub-points:
1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew
16:15-19).
2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the
troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is
depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18.
Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled
churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given
the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council

Scholar8200:
Good. Then it is wrong to single out one as the 'universal head' or 'rock' on which the Church was built! There were many as Peter admonished and Paul also did:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you
1 Peter 5:1,2a

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Here Paul was not even speaking to Apostles!

my dear, what is said of peter singularly is repeated for d apostles and even d church leaders generally. So yes, they do share authority bt even at that peter is shown as foremost in the excercise of d auuhority for d whole church.

Here is an effective distortion of Ephesians 2;20! The apostles and prophets are the foundation all resting on the Chief Cornerstone - Jesus Christ!
Whence did you get Peter is a rock on which the foundation of the apostles?

11 []For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ[].
1 Corinth 3:11

did i say d bolded?

[quote author=Scholar8200 post=40006127]Pls show chapter and verse in book of Acts where your claim happened![/QUOTE] ACT 15:7, it show that the was a heated debate in d council, peter stood up and spoke, after dat the arguement ended, nobody raised any objection again.

James made the Spirit inspired declaration and all the apostles and elders, one of which was Peter, agreed to it.

Acts 15:13,22,23
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me[b]:
22 [b]Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church[b], to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 and they wrote letters by them after this manner;

[b]The apostles and elders and brethren[b] send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Pls study carefully before making assertions, we are on air!

you forgot this passage
act 15:14
[b]simon has just explained

put simply even james conclusion was based upon the unobjected conclusion of peter.

Bobbysworld28:
Wrong! Peter erred at a point and Paul admonished him.

infallibity is abt teaching, not whether someone sinned or was a hypocrite. Now my question, where did Peter TEACH error?

Bobbysworld28:
Still laughable and comical.
He has his Holy Spirit sent to us, he CANNOT abdicate his role, ok?

nobody said he abdicated stop argueing against a strawman.

Scholar8200:
Do reconcile your interpretation with:

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

my dear there is nothing to reconcile, Jesus was sent by the father, he sent his apostles, Jesus is d chief sherpherd d gave peter and other d duty to tend d flock, Jesus is d chief cornerstone and he appointed peter as rock and built upon d foundation of d apostles. As he left d world he gave d administration of d church to d apostler.
Nothing is contradictory, i've gat nothing to reconcile.

Scholar8200:
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1:18,19

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11,12

He did not go to Peter for teaching/feeding.

That he was like the spokesman does not mean he was their head. Even Jesus did not choose one when they wanted to know who will be the greatest among them. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 suggests a maintained sense of equality among the Apostles: James issued what will be the conclusion of the deliberations neither by Peter's behest, nor subject to Peter's approval!

Christ already gave them (not one) this authority (more like an assignment) in John 15: 20b,27(affirmed in Ephesians 2:20). The Authority of Christ is in His Name and that Name is available to all that believe. However, His authority as the Head of the Church is in the hands of NOBODY!

i thought u or is it bobby argued dat they didnt posses d said authority.

Paul didnt go for feeding but he went that his teaching may b confirmed so he 'wouldnt have ran in vain'.

Jolliano:
1. Still any number of Christians would not gather and make a decision which would be binding on all Christians. For their decision to be obeyed and followed by all, they must have had a certain RECOGNISABLE and ACCEPTABLE AUTHORITY.

Of course, I'm not saying the Holy Spirit was not more important. The Holy Spirit guided them but if the Council had no authority, then the others wouldn't have adhered to it.

You say the Apostles didn't have special authority. Was the "Whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven..." given to everyone or to Peter and then to the Apostles?

fine point.

Scholar8200:
That is your interpretation which was neither stated nor hinted at by ANY of the Apostles in their Epistles!

so u do nt blive dat Jesus gave his authority to d apostles? Wat does matt 18:18 say? Is dat not authority been given?

Galatians 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Peter was one of the Apostles of repute ( and perhaps notable because of his being an extrovert) but there were others eg James, John etc

did u read what u quoted? Read d bold, paul wasn't taught by anyone but even him had to meet d apostles to confirm his teaching he said 'so dat he doesn't run in vain'.

accountable:
The bible says says concerning the bereans
[Act 17:11-12/KJV] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

They searched the scriptures daily whether those things spoken by Paul were true. I doing see any infallibility there. Do u? They bereans are a worthy example of true followers and Paul is a good example of a true leader. No infallibility. Only the word is infallible

my dear, d teach paul gave them was without error, they search d old testament so they might b convince as conviction is a personal matter. Even as d church continues teaching the apostolic teaching she is convinced that those teaching are without error while at the same time allowing many to search d scriptures to b personal convinced.

D fact that d bareans search scripture doesnt mean d teaching of paul had error (fallible).

accountable:
Simply put.... even if we come back to preach any thing to u contrary to 'this truth' don't believe us but rather hold on to 'the truth'

If I say anything to u that is contrary to the gospel don't believe........ PAUL
Always believe whatever I tell you concerning faith because I am infallible......Pope.
This two statements are different and opposiet. Can't u see?

so paul had proclaim a truth which he blived was without error (infallible), and he told them that if even (hypothetical) anyone including themself teach sumtin different it should not be accepted. He simply made an hypothetical case, he in no way infer dat he would lata teach error.

In any case u'll still agree that d truth he first taught were without error and thus infallible.

2. The two statements arent necesary opposites, if d pope alway proclaims d infallible teaching of d apostle then he taught without error.

accountable:
I can see that u cleverly deleted the part were the pope said that he is not infallible. I agree that the holy spirit that inspired the scripture is infallible.but the man is not infallible. Paul said that he is not infallible, do u want to contradict him?
He said 'even we'. They didn't claim to be infallible. But the inspired word they had preached was infallible. The man is not infallible but the THE WORD is infallible

the pope say he has to speak infalliably to b infalliable. Popes do no speak infallably every time they speak, they have to speak infalliably to be infalible, pope John decided from d begining never to speak infallibly, so throughout his time he decided not to use infallibility. He was not infalible. D presemt pope too (pope francis) has never used infalibility too. There is nothing interesting there.

2. So has d holyspirit stop making men teach infallible truth?

Bobbysworld28:
Ur claim is totally unfounded. James was talking abt a support system of believes here not classes of priesthood. Choi, u r still going round in circles

sorry dear bt she does have a fine point. The apostle james clearly says call a presbyter, dat is actually d minister of d church, the guy incharge of preaching, breaking of bread and laying of hands for a new presbyter.

Whether u chose to ignore it or not but scripture show dat out of d 'kingdom of priest' some where called out to minister to d people. There was a ministerial priesthood.

Bobbysworld28:
There is an additional layer of authority btwn men and Christ (herein lies the follow of the Roman Catholic Church). If Christ lives in me, how can these things u say hold water? Let d teachings of Christ guide u and u wont err

thank God u agree that the presbyter and d bishop are men in d church who do posses some authority.