Different interpretations based on different interpretations.... lol

[37818]

The Oral Tradition explains the Written Tradition, without it you can’t really understand scripture.
The Christian religion was never just confined to texts alone. That’s the false idea Luther started.
For the first 400 years there was no declared Bible.

The scriptures were the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, before the Catholic Church Canonised them

The Bible itself was determined by Apostolic Tradition.

The only Apostolic authority we actually have are the New Testament documents themselves. The written Scriptures were Holy Scripture when they were written.

 

[37818]

You mean if someone comes along and preaches another Jesus conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity. From their private interpretation of Scripture.

That is what you are claiming.
I don't.

 

[Cathode]

The only Apostolic authority we actually have are the New Testament documents themselves. The written Scriptures were Holy Scripture when they were written.

So the Apostolic Church written about in scripture has no authority and people could believe what they liked, and ignore the bishops appointed by the Apostles?

No.

Those appointed by the Apostles had Apostolic authority, and those they appointed.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

 

[37818]

So the Apostolic Church written about in scripture has no authority and people could believe what they liked, and ignore the bishops appointed by the Apostles?

No.

Those appointed by the Apostles had Apostolic authority, and those they appointed.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

There were no "Popes" used as a title until the third century.

Matthew 23:8-10, ". . . be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. . . ."

 

[Cathode]

There were no "Popes" used as a title until the third century.

Catholics had other titles before that, that meant the same thing, bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, etc.

Matthew 23:8-10, ". . . be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. . . ."

“ Honour your Father and your Mother “

“ I became your Father through the Gospel “

 

[37818]

Catholics had other titles before that, that meant the same thing, bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, etc.

There is no recored of being called the Catholic Church until the third century.

“ Honour your Father and your Mother “

“ I became your Father through the Gospel “

Also in 1 John.used the term in the plural. But individuals were never adderesed as spiritually Father except for God. see John 17:11, Matthew 23:9.

 

[Silverhair]

You mean if someone comes along and preaches another Jesus conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity. From their private interpretation of Scripture.




This is all Catholic history, no Protestant or Baptist’s had anything to do with preserving the scriptures from the Apostles and determining the Canon. They didn’t exist then.
All done by the Catholic Church. And all the Church fathers writings come down to us only through Catholic tradition.

What I do find most saddening is that you are more concerned with protecting the RCC than you are with standing for the truth of God's word.

Example your constant refrain that mary was sinless. But then again why would you trust scripture when you have the RCC to tell you what to think.

Actually the RCC did not exist when the canon was already known. History is not on your or the RCC's side.

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly. By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation. Likewise, by 200 C.E., the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, there were also precedents for the current canon dating back to the second century.
Biblical canon - New World Encyclopedia

I have to ask why do you continue to support an institution that is shown to be so un-biblical. How do you justify the violation of woman's rights, the Crusades, and Catholic priest's s;xual abuse of children and the coverup of it by the RCC. John Paul II apologized to the world for over 100 atrocities committed by the church over the last centuries including the murder of Jan Hus because he dared to push for reform of the RCC clergy.

The RCC claimed in 1870 that all popes were infallible but I have to ask how more than forty years after his death, Pope Honorius I, who held the papacy from 625 to his death in 638, was anathematized. How can someone who is capable of speaking infallibly be declared a heretic?

Your allegiance to the RCC is evident from your posts. Now if you just put the same effort into supporting the truth of scripture.

The many un-biblical dogma;s that the RCC has brought into the church have been pointed out to you more than once and you have failed to provide any clear biblical support for any of them. You the authority of the RCC but the bible does not support your idea of Peter as the first pope or even that he would be considered the primary Apostle. The RCC is like the emperor that had no clothes, one just have to open their eyes to see the truth.

 

[Silverhair]

There is no recored of being called the Catholic Church until the third century.



Also in 1 John.used the term in the plural. But individuals were never adderesed as spiritually Father except for God. see John 17:11, Matthew 23:9.

You have to wonder why Cathode is so insistent on supporting the RCC. He has closed his mind to anything scriptural if it disagrees with the RCC dogma's. He has shown that he does not have an independent thought regarding the bible, he will only give the standard official line.

The sad part is that he will believe the RCC over the Holy Word of God and then think his honoring God.

 

[37818]

@Silverhair,
Brother @Cathode is indeed adamant to defend RCC. Well, he needs to do a few things. Pick one argument at a time, set it side by side with one of our arguments which he is conviced as being wrong. What is not true needs to be set against the true to make what is true undersandable. Two opposing truths cannot both be true.

Man was created to be good, but is only finite good. God is infinitely good, so His knowladge of evil cannot cause God not to be good. But was the cause for man to become sinfuf, Genesis 2;17, Romans 5:12, Genesis 3:22.

 

[37818]

@Cathode,
The Son of God becoming a man did not cease being God.
He only changed how He was with God. God cannot not be sinless. Luke 18:19, . . . none is good, save one, that is, God.

The Son of God, has always been the Son and has always been God. The Son of God cbanged to be also the Son of man too. He did not cease to be God being the Son of God.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair,
Brother @Cathode is indeed adamant to defend RCC. Well, he needs to do a few things. Pick one argument at a time, set it side by side with one of our arguments which he is conviced as being wrong. What is not true needs to be set against the true to make what is true undersandable. Two opposing truths cannot both be true.

Man was created to be good, but is only finite good. God is infinitely good, so His knowladge of evil cannot cause God not to be good. But was the cause for man to become sinfuf, Genesis 2;17, Romans 5:12, Genesis 3:22.

Until this discussion with Cathode I had not really looked into the RCC. I knew some of the more obvious things but the more you check the more errors you find.

It seems they have built error upon error. What he does not seem to understand is that it is the RCC and their dogma's that I am condemning not him.

 

[Cathode]

There is no recored of being called the Catholic Church until the third century.

Yes there is. These writings only come down to us through the Catholic Church.

Also in 1 John.used the term in the plural. But individuals were never adderesed as spiritually Father except for God. see John 17:11, Matthew 23:9.

What Jesus was prohibiting was addressing someone a as Father god , the emperor claimed to be Divine and wanted to be called Father.

 

[Cathode]

@Silverhair,
Brother @Cathode is indeed adamant to defend RCC. Well, he needs to do a few things. Pick one argument at a time, set it side by side with one of our arguments which he is conviced as being wrong. What is not true needs to be set against the true to make what is true undersandable. Two opposing truths cannot both be true.

Man was created to be good, but is only finite good. God is infinitely good, so His knowladge of evil cannot cause God not to be good. But was the cause for man to become sinfuf, Genesis 2;17, Romans 5:12, Genesis 3:22.

You guys haven’t convinced me that Jesus was a sinner yet.

If you convince me that Mary was a sinner, and Jesus was conceived of her sinful flesh, then it’s over.

I would abandon Christianity altogether.

See I would follow through to the end conclusion of your position. If Jesus was conceived of sinful flesh, then He would be a sinner, then all Christianity is false, and my Bible would go straight into the garbage.

 

[Silverhair]

You guys haven’t convinced me that Jesus was a sinner yet.

If you convince me that Mary was a sinner, and Jesus was conceived of her sinful flesh, then it’s over.

I would abandon Christianity altogether.

See I would follow through to the end conclusion of your position. If Jesus was conceived of sinful flesh, then He would be a sinner, then all Christianity is false, and my Bible would go straight into the garbage.

How many times are you going to call God a sinner? The truth is right there in front of you and you are being willfully blind.

We are not attempting to convince you of an un-biblical view while you are doing just that. You are trusting what the RCC has told you to believe rather than believe what the Holy Spirit has said.

What we are saying is you should abandon the false teachings of the RCC and believe the bible.

We do not have to convince you of a truth you just have to accept it.

If having your false foundation, the RCC, destroyed would convince you to abandon Christianity then you are a fool. Look at what you are using as your foundation, the RCC. Open your eyes, wake up to the truth.

The foundation is Christ not Peter and certainly not the RCC. To be blunt you have been lied to by the RCC. You do not want the truth you want the lies of the RCC

If you think trusting in the RCC to save you then Cathode you are as lost as a ball in tall grass.

As I said before you either have to believe the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God or you will continue to believe the falsehoods of the RCC, it can not be both.

Your choice. The choice you make will determine your eternal future so choose wisely.

 

[Cathode]

You have to wonder why Cathode is so insistent on supporting the RCC. He has closed his mind to anything scriptural if it disagrees with the RCC dogma's. He has shown that he does not have an independent thought regarding the bible, he will only give the standard official line.

The sad part is that he will believe the RCC over the Holy Word of God and then think his honoring God.

I’m not fighting for the Catholic Church as such on this on this point, I am fighting for my faith in Jesus altogether.

If Jesus was conceived of sinful flesh, then He would be a sinner, then every other claim of Christianity is false.

Jesus has to be the unblemished Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. I am not a private interpreter, I cannot hold to opposing and conflicted interpretations and doctrines then feel good about it, and ignore the chaos, I’m not practiced at it.

Convince me Jesus’ Mother conceived Jesus in sin, and I am out altogether. Christianity would be false.

 

[Cathode]

How many times are you going to call God a sinner? The truth is right there in front of you and you are being willfully blind.

We are not attempting to convince you of an un-biblical view while you are doing just that. You are trusting what the RCC has told you to believe rather than believe what the Holy Spirit has said.

What we are saying is you should abandon the false teachings of the RCC and believe the bible.

We do not have to convince you of a truth you just have to accept it.

If having your false foundation, the RCC, destroyed would convince you to abandon Christianity then you are a fool. Look at what you are using as your foundation, the RCC. Open your eyes, wake up to the truth.

The foundation is Christ not Peter and certainly not the RCC. To be blunt you have been lied to by the RCC. You do not want the truth you want the lies of the RCC

If you think trusting in the RCC to save you then Cathode you are as lost as a ball in tall grass.

As I said before you either have to believe the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God or you will continue to believe the falsehoods of the RCC, it can not be both.

Your choice. The choice you make will determine your eternal future so choose wisely.

Fact is Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be conceived of her flesh.

Because Christianity stands or falls on whether Jesus was the unblemished Lamb of God or not.

If I was a private interpreter I would accept first that Mary had to be sinless, to defend Jesus sinlessness. Then abandon all my other wrongful interpretations in other scriptures around that.

Christianity stands or falls on whether Jesus was sinless or not.

 

[Silverhair]

I’m not fighting for the Catholic Church as such on this on this point, I am fighting for my faith in Jesus altogether.

If Jesus was conceived of sinful flesh, then He would be a sinner, then every other claim of Christianity is false.

Jesus has to be the unblemished Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. I am not a private interpreter, I cannot hold to opposing and conflicted interpretations and doctrines then feel good about it, and ignore the chaos, I’m not practiced at it.

Convince me Jesus’ Mother conceived Jesus in sin, and I am out altogether. Christianity would be false.

I do not have to convince you of anything. You need to start trusting the bible not the RCC.

The bible tells us that all humans are sinners that includes mary. Rom 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," do you see anywhere in the bible that says well everyone except mary. And yes David was conceived in sin just as we all are, were not God.

Christ Jesus is God. Do you not understand that? God lower Himself to be born of a sinful woman but He did not stop being God. You do realize that God the Holy Spirit dwells within each one of us that have trusted in the risen Christ for their salvation. If the Holy Spirit that dwells within us is not made a sinner, He has been in me for over sixty years, why would you think that Christ would be made a sinner after only 9 months?

You are putting a human limitation on God. The bible says humans all sin, believe it That is why we need a savior. The bible also tells us the Christ was without sin, believe that also. That is why He could be our savior.

We are not trying to convince you of a falsehood, we just want you to trust the written Word of God.

 

[Silverhair]

Fact is Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be conceived of her flesh.

Because Christianity stands or falls on whether Jesus was the unblemished Lamb of God or not.

If I was a private interpreter I would accept first that Mary had to be sinless, to defend Jesus sinlessness. Then abandon all my other wrongful interpretations in other scriptures around that.

Christianity stands or falls on whether Jesus was sinless or not.

Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be conceived of her flesh. Why?
Did Christ stop being God, no. You are saying that a human did something they can not do, be sinless and saying that God can not do what He did, be sinless.

Cathode you will either believe the bible or you will not. That mary was sinless is a position not supported by the bible. You can not provide one verse that shows she was sinless, that is just you doing a private interpretation of scripture.

What are you basing that view on, it can't be the bible so you must have been told it by someone. But the question on what authority does the person or institution have to alter the word of God? And why do you trust them over the written Word of God that you have in your hands?

 

[Cathode]

I do not have to convince you of anything. You need to start trusting the bible not the RCC.

The bible tells us that all humans are sinners that includes mary. Rom 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," do you see anywhere in the bible that says well everyone except mary. And yes David was conceived in sin just as we all are, were not God.

Christ Jesus is God. Do you not understand that? God lower Himself to be born of a sinful woman but He did not stop being God. You do realize that God the Holy Spirit dwells within each one of us that have trusted in the risen Christ for their salvation. If the Holy Spirit that dwells within us is not made a sinner, He has been in me for over sixty years, why would you think that Christ would be made a sinner after only 9 months?

You are putting a human limitation on God. The bible says humans all sin, believe it That is why we need a savior. The bible also tells us the Christ was without sin, believe that also. That is why He could be our savior.

We are not trying to convince you of a falsehood, we just want you to trust the written Word of God.

I do believe the Word of God. “ You will conceive “. I’m stuck on that.

Mary conceived.

If the Angel had said anything else like ‘ you will be implanted ‘ or ‘ you become with child ‘, then no probs.

But he said “ You will conceive “.

Jesus can’t be conceived of sinful flesh, that would make him a sinner.

 

[Silverhair]

I do believe the Word of God. “ You will conceive “. I’m stuck on that.

Mary conceived.

If the Angel had said anything else like ‘ you will be implanted ‘ or ‘ you become with child ‘, then no probs.

But he said “ You will conceive “.

Jesus can’t be conceived of sinful flesh, that would make him a sinner.

So the problem you have is that you can not conceive of the idea that God could use a sinful woman to bring forth His sinless child. Am I understanding you correctly?

The God that created everything that we see, the sovereign Lord is unable to do that.

The problem as I see it is not the word conceive it is that you have placed to mush trust in that institution, the RCC, and to little in the God of creation and His inspired word.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

Mary speaks of God as "my Savior".
Mary said Christ was her personal savior she did not say "a savior" or "the savior" Mary did not consider herself to be sinless so why should you?

You are saying that a human did something they can not do, be sinless and saying that God can not do what He did, be sinless.

Cathode you will either believe the bible or you will not.