Different interpretations based on different interpretations.... lol

[Cathode]

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory. At the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, the Catholic Church defined, for the first time.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was not defined as a dogma until 1854 by Pope Pius IX

These doctrines you added to the bible so it looks like you do not follow the bible as written.

The Catholic Church only defines a thing, if it challenged.

Purgatory and Mary’s sinlessness was believed already before they were defined.

““For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Cor.,3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.” Origen, Homilies on Jeremias, PG 13:445, 448 ( A.D. 244).

Notice Origen interprets Corinthians as Catholics do today, as being the cleansing fire souls undergo after death.

“If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” Cor 3:15

Without Apostolic Oral Tradition you fail to understand that scripture is teaching about Purgatory.

You interpret scripture falsely as a modern, asking ‘ what does the words mean to me ‘, who cares, ask yourself instead ‘ What did the words mean to the Apostles ‘

What you think the scripture words mean and what the Apostles taught scriptures words to mean are totally different.

 

[Cathode]

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was not defined as a dogma until 1854 by Pope Pius IX

These doctrines you added to the bible so it looks like you do not follow the bible as written.

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

So 1800 years separate Catholics and Origen, yet on purgatory and Mary Immaculate, we have the same belief. Same understanding of Scripture.

Think how remarkable that is, how consistent.

Now look at your changing interpretations of scripture since Luther’s “ Bible alone “ revolution. For every modern interpretation of scripture, there is an opposing interpretation of scripture in Protestantism.
Who interprets scripture today as Luther did. He thought he was guided by The Holy Spirit, or was he kidding himself.

Apostolic Tradition is consistent for 2000 years teaching the same interpretations of the Apostles.

How about Confession to a priest? Catholics and Origen agree

“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

What about Infant Baptism? Catholics today and Origen agree.

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Water Baptism is regeneration, Catholics today and Origen agree.

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

I could go on, but are you seeing how there is only one ancient Apostolic interpretation handed down in Apostolic Tradition.

Not the totally changeable clown show of “ What does the text mean to you”, who gives a rats backend what the words mean to me, I only want to know what they originally meant to the Apostles.

 

[Silverhair]

Protestantism began the heresy of holding to “ What is written alone “ and even the scripture teaches against this.

Scripture doesn’t say ‘ hold only to what is written alone ‘.

What scripture actually tells us to do is “ Hold to the traditions we taught you, whether by word of mouth, or by letter. “

We are meant to hold to both the Apostolic Oral Tradition and the Written Tradition of Scripture together.

Catholics do that, we actually do what Paul teaches right there.

Protestantism broke from the scripture when they followed the false unscriptural premise of scripture alone.

You keep ignoring the real problem that has been pointed out to you. The RCC has added a number of false teaching to the bible and you just accept them because your pope says it is fine and he couldn't be wrong could he.

I hold to what I see in the bible because it is the word of God. You hold to your false additions and subtractions because some man told you it was fine. So you follow a man and I follow God.

You say hold to the traditions that Paul spoke of or wrote down. Big problem you do not even know what he was speaking of. What you have at best is what a group of uninspired men tell you they were. What we do know is that they did not include "Mary worship, transubstantiation, prugatory, papal infallibility, works salvation" None of these are found in scripture are they?

Why do you insist on following a man rather than God?

 

[Cathode]

You keep ignoring the real problem that has been pointed out to you. The RCC has added a number of false teaching to the bible and you just accept them because your pope says it is fine and he couldn't be wrong could he.

I hold to what I see in the bible because it is the word of God. You hold to your false additions and subtractions because some man told you it was fine. So you follow a man and I follow God.

You say hold to the traditions that Paul spoke of or wrote down. Big problem you do not even know what he was speaking of. What you have at best is what a group of uninspired men tell you they were. What we do know is that they did not include "Mary worship, transubstantiation, prugatory, papal infallibility, works salvation" None of these are found in scripture are they?

Why do you insist on following a man rather than God?

Protestantism follows man made teaching starting with Luther.

Bible alone and faith alone were his new false man made teachings, Scripture doesn’t teach either of these things.

From these false premises a whole raft of conflicting and incoherent doctrines have been interpreted from scripture in many traditions of men, self appointed to interpret scripture how it meant to them.

Catholics hold to the singular ancient interpretations of Scripture that the Apostles handed down, not the ‘ what do the words mean to me ‘ mess that Luther started.

 

[Silverhair]

The Catholic Church only defines a thing, if it challenged.

Purgatory and Mary’s sinlessness was believed already before they were defined.

““For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Cor.,3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.” Origen, Homilies on Jeremias, PG 13:445, 448 ( A.D. 244).

Notice Origen interprets Corinthians as Catholics do today, as being the cleansing fire souls undergo after death.

“If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” Cor 3:15

Without Apostolic Oral Tradition you fail to understand that scripture is teaching about Purgatory.

You interpret scripture falsely as a modern, asking ‘ what does the words mean to me ‘, who cares, ask yourself instead ‘ What did the words mean to the Apostles ‘

What you think the scripture words mean and what the Apostles taught scriptures words to mean are totally different.

Your finale comments betray you. You hold to what some man, Origen, tells you the text means and then say we should trust what the Apostles meant.

The Catholic Church holds that "all who die in God's grace and friendship but still imperfectly purified" undergo a process of purification, which the church calls purgatory, "so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven"

So what you want us to accept is that Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient to cover all man's sins. That we have to add to His work. Was Christ not the propitiation for all man's sins? 1Jn_2:2, 1Pe_2:24

There is only one foundation, Jesus Christ, but the way we build upon that foundation is our choice. We may build with precious lasting materials or with worthless temporal materials. Those that have built with precious materials to grow in Christ likeness will gain rewards in judgement those that have used temporal materials will loose them.

Those that die without having their sins paid for will be condemned.

 

[Silverhair]

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

So 1800 years separate Catholics and Origen, yet on purgatory and Mary Immaculate, we have the same belief. Same understanding of Scripture.

Think how remarkable that is, how consistent.

Now look at your changing interpretations of scripture since Luther’s “ Bible alone “ revolution. For every modern interpretation of scripture, there is an opposing interpretation of scripture in Protestantism.
Who interprets scripture today as Luther did. He thought he was guided by The Holy Spirit, or was he kidding himself.

Apostolic Tradition is consistent for 2000 years teaching the same interpretations of the Apostles.

How about Confession to a priest? Catholics and Origen agree

“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

What about Infant Baptism? Catholics today and Origen agree.

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Water Baptism is regeneration, Catholics today and Origen agree.

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

I could go on, but are you seeing how there is only one ancient Apostolic interpretation handed down in Apostolic Tradition.

Not the totally changeable clown show of “ What does the text mean to you”, who gives a rats backend what the words mean to me, I only want to know what they originally meant to the Apostles.

What I keep seeing is that you trust what some man tells you the bible says. Why is that? Do you think the Holy Spirit needs man's help?

The RCC holds to many false teachings that are not found in the bible and to use your words it is a "clown show".

I note you quote Origen but are you sure you want to take your stand based on his teachings?

In the year 400, Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was incorporeal, which they decreed contradicted the only true and orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body resembling that of a human.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Origenist_crises

In spite of Origen's intentions and clear commitment to biblical authority, however, many believe that his use of Scripture compromised that authority, providing fertile conditions for the germination and growth of heresy.
Christian History Institute
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org › magazine › article

Origen taught that all souls, including the devil himself, will eventually achieve salvation, even if it takes innumerable ages to do so.
utm.edu
https://iep.utm.edu › origen-of-alexandria

 

[Silverhair]

Protestantism follows man made teaching starting with Luther.

Bible alone and faith alone were his new false man made teachings, Scripture doesn’t teach either of these things.

From these false premises a whole raft of conflicting and incoherent doctrines have been interpreted from scripture in many traditions of men, self appointed to interpret scripture how it meant to them.

Catholics hold to the singular ancient interpretations of Scripture that the Apostles handed down, not the ‘ what do the words mean to me ‘ mess that Luther started.

I know you do not like Luther as he pointed out the many excesses of the RCC. But to say that Protestantism follows man made teaching is an error on your part. Speaking for myself I follow the bible. What has been clearly shown and you have even admitted in your post is that the RCC does indeed follow man-made teachings. Teachings that are not supported in scripture.

The RCC has shown itself to be less than trustworthy when it comes to handling the word of God. You, I am sure, will continue to claim that the RCC is true to scripture but that is a demonstrable falsehood.

 

[Cathode]

What I keep seeing is that you trust what some man tells you the bible says. Why is that? Do you think the Holy Spirit needs man's help?

The RCC holds to many false teachings that are not found in the bible and to use your words it is a "clown show".

I note you quote Origen but are you sure you want to take your stand based on his teachings?

In the year 400, Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was incorporeal, which they decreed contradicted the only true and orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body resembling that of a human.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Origenist_crises

In spite of Origen's intentions and clear commitment to biblical authority, however, many believe that his use of Scripture compromised that authority, providing fertile conditions for the germination and growth of heresy.
Christian History Institute
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org › magazine › article

Origen taught that all souls, including the devil himself, will eventually achieve salvation, even if it takes innumerable ages to do so.
utm.edu
https://iep.utm.edu › origen-of-alexandria

Who corrected Origen’s error? The Catholic Church.

See, this is where departing from the Apostolic Tradition gets people into trouble.

Who are you to declare the Catholic Church wrong on interpretation of Scripture, unless you are claiming infallibility of your interpretation and doctrines, yours is just another fallible opinion of scripture.

Was Origen corrected for baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest?

No. Telling isn’t it.

 

[Mikoo]

Who corrected Origen’s error? The Catholic Church.

See, this is where departing from the Apostolic Tradition gets people into trouble.

Who are you to declare the Catholic Church wrong on interpretation of Scripture, unless you are claiming infallibility of your interpretation and doctrines, yours is just another fallible opinion of scripture.

Was Origen corrected for baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest?

No. Telling isn’t it.

You had to use your private interpretation of Scripture to believe the rc denomination is what it claims to be.

 

[Cathode]

You had to use your private interpretation of Scripture to believe the rc denomination is what it claims to be.

No, I read history and found out the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures from the Apostles, and determined and assembled the Bible itself. No Protestant or Bible alone Tradition did that, they had nothing to do with it, only the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church doing that, make it the only Church that can tell me what it means. It’s her book entirely.

 

[Silverhair]

Who corrected Origen’s error? The Catholic Church.

See, this is where departing from the Apostolic Tradition gets people into trouble.

Who are you to declare the Catholic Church wrong on interpretation of Scripture, unless you are claiming infallibility of your interpretation and doctrines, yours is just another fallible opinion of scripture.

Was Origen corrected for baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest?

No. Telling isn’t it.

You are funny, you use Origen as support in one post then run away from him in the next. You have yet to show any biblical support for the RCC errant views on baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest. Just because you tell us that the RCC supports it does not make it true. Actually the fact the RCC does support it shows just how wrong it is. You should stop digging the hole you are in. The more you try to support the RCC the worse it gets.

@Cathode you continue to follow what some man or group of men have told you the bible says. Trust what the Holy Spirit inspired.

 

[Cathode]

Your finale comments betray you. You hold to what some man, Origen, tells you the text means and then say we should trust what the Apostles meant.

The Catholic Church holds that "all who die in God's grace and friendship but still imperfectly purified" undergo a process of purification, which the church calls purgatory, "so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven"

So what you want us to accept is that Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient to cover all man's sins. That we have to add to His work. Was Christ not the propitiation for all man's sins? 1Jn_2:2, 1Pe_2:24

There is only one foundation, Jesus Christ, but the way we build upon that foundation is our choice. We may build with precious lasting materials or with worthless temporal materials. Those that have built with precious materials to grow in Christ likeness will gain rewards in judgement those that have used temporal materials will loose them.

Those that die without having their sins paid for will be condemned.

Your interpretation is private interpretation, not Apostolic interpretation.

Protestantism proves that the Bible can mean anything, just privately interpret “ what the words mean to you “ is rule, and that ends in a clown show of interpretations and doctrines and divisions.

 

[Silverhair]

No, I read history and found out the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures from the Apostles, and determined and assembled the Bible itself. No Protestant or Bible alone Tradition did that, they had nothing to do with it, only the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church doing that, make it the only Church that can tell me what it means. It’s her book entirely.

The arrogance that you display is beyond description. This will come as a shock to to you but the bible is God's book it is His words.

The only book that the RCC can claim for their own is the altered version of God's word. The RCC has taken the word of God and abused it and for this they will be judged.

 

[Mikoo]

No, I read history and found out the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures from the Apostles, and determined and assembled the Bible itself. No Protestant or Bible alone Tradition did that, they had nothing to do with it, only the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church doing that, make it the only Church that can tell me what it means. It’s her book entirely.

Funny, I read God's Word (not man's fallible history) and did not find many the teachings/doctrines in the God's Word.
Funny, I read history and found out the rc denomination is not what it claims to be.

 

[Cathode]

You are funny, you use Origen as support in one post then run away from him in the next. You have yet to show any biblical support for the RCC errant views on baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest. Just because you tell us that the RCC supports it does not make it true. Actually the fact the RCC does support it shows just how wrong it is. You should stop digging the hole you are in. The more you try to support the RCC the worse it gets.

You haven’t answered why Origen wasn’t condemned for baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest.

@Cathode you continue to follow what some man or group of men have told you the bible says. Trust what the Holy Spirit inspired.

Bible aloners are the ones that follow a man or group of men that tell them what the bible says. Started with Luther, and then countless traditions of men.

Catholics follow Apostolic Tradition for 2000 years.

 

[Cathode]

The arrogance that you display is beyond description. This will come as a shock to to you but the bible is God's book it is His words.

The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky in 1611, no.

Read some history. Only the Catholic Church authenticated and determined the Canon of Scripture guided by God.
If it was guided by God enough to determine the Canon itself, then it is guided enough to tell me what it means.

The only book that the RCC can claim for their own is the altered version of God's word. The RCC has taken the word of God and abused it and for this they will be judged.

Says you.

 

[Silverhair]

Your interpretation is private interpretation, not Apostolic interpretation.

Protestantism proves that the Bible can mean anything, just privately interpret “ what the words mean to you “ is rule, and that ends in a clown show of interpretations and doctrines and divisions.

@Cathode you keep saying the same thing over and over but for someone that claims the RCC has the truth you have yet to provide any scripture that supports the errant views the RCC brought into the church.

Look at your post # 68 you man should confess their sins to a man "Confession to a priest". Can he forgive sins? Answer NO. But that is the position the RCC puts them in. The pope is infallible, that is easy to prove is wrong. Mary had no sin, really? Does your bible not have Rom_3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," in it or is that another of the verses that got left out of your version?

I do have to correct one error you have made more than once. The Apostles did not interpret the text they wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is the same Holy Spirit the guides those of us that actually read the bible for ourselves. You, on the other hand, depend upon some men that have shown themselves to be less than credible to tell you what the bible means. I and many others depend upon the author, the Holy Spirit, to lead us to understand what it means.

 

[Silverhair]

You haven’t answered why Origen wasn’t condemned for baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest.



Bible aloners are the ones that follow a man or group of men that tell them what the bible says. Started with Luther, and then countless traditions of men.

Catholics follow Apostolic Tradition for 2000 years.

I did not know that we were to hold Origen's view over the word of God. Funny that you want me to accept some man but you do not accept God's word. Prove baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary Immaculate, Confession to a priest from the bible. You can not.

I do notice that you do not claim to follow the bible. But since your "infallible pope" keeps changing what the bible means I can understand why you don't. Your standard of truth is not Christ Jesus but your RCC through your pope.

 

[Silverhair]

The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky in 1611, no.

Read some history. Only the Catholic Church authenticated and determined the Canon of Scripture guided by God.
If it was guided by God enough to determine the Canon itself, then it is guided enough to tell me what it means.



Says you.

Yes God directed flawed men to preserve His word. Then flawed men chose to edit His word by removing or adding to the text. They have taken it upon themselves to institute doctrines not found in the bible and yet they want to claim they are the only ones that have preserved the bible.

I said "The only book that the RCC can claim for their own is the altered version of God's word. The RCC has taken the word of God and abused it and for this they will be judged."

Are you going to say that the RCC has not altered the text of scripture?

You can continue to make your false claims all day long but it will not alter the fact that your RCC is promoting a false religion of works salvation.

I have pointed out your errors but to no avail. You have chosen to follow the dictates of men rather than the word of God. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Cathode]

@Cathode you keep saying the same thing over and over but for someone that claims the RCC has the truth you have yet to provide any scripture that supports the errant views the RCC brought into the church.

When dealing with private interpreters of Scripture, they can make scripture mean what they want it to mean. Remember “ what do the words mean to you “, There is no objective truth in their interpretations, just subjective opinions.
The scripture means anything to each private interpreter that picks the bible up, they love their opinions more than the Truth.

So what happens when Scripture is quoted for them, they ignore it and put their own subjective interpretation on it.

Look at your post # 68 you man should confess their sins to a man "Confession to a priest". Can he forgive sins? Answer NO. But that is the position the RCC puts them in. The pope is infallible, that is easy to prove is wrong. Mary had no sin, really? Does your bible not have Rom_3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," in it or is that another of the verses that got left out of your version?

I do have to correct one error you have made more than once. The Apostles did not interpret the text they wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is the same Holy Spirit the guides those of us that actually read the bible for ourselves. You, on the other hand, depend upon some men that have shown themselves to be less than credible to tell you what the bible means. I and many others depend upon the author, the Holy Spirit, to lead us to understand what it means.

If the Bible alone idea Luther birthed was true and each man just needed to interpret the Bible with the guidance of God.
Every Christian would be Lutheran interpreting and believing exactly the same doctrines Luther interpreted from Scripture.

It is a manifestly false idea.