"I will build my church"

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

Talking with the dead is an occult practice today.

"Dead" spirits? But the saints are alive in heaven! Diviniation, as in a seance that asks for a reply to a message to a deceased person is forbidden by the Catholic Church, in case you did not know, which is necromancy as forbidden in scriptures as well. But to simply pray to God via my deceased mother is not the same thing, nor is it if I ask for an intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary to pray for me as in the litany of the saints I will give as a "tagline" at the end of this message.

The doctrine of the Communion of the Saints not only includes the prayerful intercession between us when we are alive and in each other's company, but also when they die and go to heaven.

Here is a link to the subject that goes into details:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp

In the Old Testament communicating with the dead is forbidden by God:

Deut 18:9-12, "When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. "For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.

Good! You saved me the trouble of looking it up on scripture!

What does it say about calling up the dead?

Isaiah 8:19,20, "When they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

The problem here is, such necromancy is intended to be a two-way communication for some favor, even some devious result and not the simple of an appeal to intercessory prayer of the saved souls before God.

The punishment for contacting the dead is very severe, if they do not repent.

Am I in serious trouble if I simply ask my deceased mother to pray for me before God in heaven? I expect no return communications from her, even a appearance from her as in a seance or such conjuring, that is indeed, forbidden.

It says in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that Satan disguises himself as "an angel of light,". He's not going tell us its demonic or we would know for sure and run.

In any vison or prophecy does come true we are still instructed to exaamjune the source. If it glorifies anything or any other person other than God it not from God.

This is not the same thing as praying to the saints in heaven for their prayerful intercession. The fact that Satan does disguise himself is an interesting subject, however, often used to discredit the plethora of apparitions we have in Catholicism, and the little "test" you allude to is applicable, in fact.

We can discuss this sometimes…

Romans 8:26,27, "26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

This is speaking of the holy Spirit, of course. And being God, the third person in the holy Trinity, of course God gives us the graces to we know Him and come to Him. This is an "intercession" of another sort; another still is the "intercession" by the death of Christ on the cross. I am speaking of still another "intercession" where we pray for one another - intercession in prayer - that does not stop if a person dies. We pray for that person that he/she will find salvation, and, if the person is in heaven, can intercede for us in prayer to God.

Here is another link, a treatise by James Akin, that discusses the intercession of the saints:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/praying.htm

According to these verses it is the Holy Spirit who intercedes for us.no where in the Bible do I see spirits of the dead interceding for us as being from God. If it is not from God then you kniow where it is from.

While scripture, as in many things, is not as explicit on the subject as you would desire. But I believe it is implied. I will again give another link, also by James Akin (I think) that expounds what scripture says about praying for one another in general.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

I would think that you would want to take a look at one of the early church fathers, Tertullian, on baptism..

Could you quote it please, if it is readily available to you.

I previously said:

Secondly, show me a Catholic Church decree or papal bull that states it is quite OK to commit the sin of simonry (after Simon, the magician who tried to "buy" the charismatic powers from Peter) in the selling (by the clergy) or the purchase (by the faithful) of indulgences,

Then what did Rome do with the money from indulgences? And what is the purpose of indulgences? Show me where indulgences was practiced in the Christian church before the time of Luther.

First of all, do you know if such money went to Rome at all? I would suspect that such money stayed with the priest who perpetuated the sin of simonry, rather send it on to Rome. I do know that others believe that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome was financed that way, and indeed, monitary donations came from the known Catholic world to finance it's building, but I know of no evidence that money from indulgences was a part of it.

"HOW TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE from http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm

To gain any indulgence you must be a Catholic in a state of grace. You must be a Catholic in order to be under the Church's jurisdiction, and you must be in a state of grace because apart from God's grace none of your actions are fundamentally pleasing to God (meritorious). You also must have at least the habitual intention of gaining an indulgence by the act performed.

To gain a partial indulgence, you must perform with a contrite heart the act to which the indulgence is attached.

To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope's intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope's intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choosing.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.

Because of the extreme difficulty in meeting the final condition, plenary indulgences are rarely obtained. If you attempt to receive a plenary indulgence, but are unable to meet the last condition, a partial indulgence is received instead.

Below are indulgences listed in the Handbook of Indulgences (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1991). Note that there is an indulgence for Bible reading. So, rather than discouraging Bible reading, the Catholic Church promotes it by giving indulgences for it! (This was the case long before Vatican II.)

An act of spiritual communion, expressed in any devout formula whatsoever, is endowed with a partial indulgence

A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who devoutly spend time in mental prayer.

A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God's word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who devoutly sign themselves with the cross while saying the customary formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Priests who administer the sacraments to the Christian faithful who are in a life-and- death situation should not neglect to impart to them the apostolic blessing, with its attached indulgence. But if a priest cannot be present, Holy Mother Church lovingly grants such persons who are rightly disposed a plenary indulgence to be obtained in articulo mortis, at the approach of death, provided they regularly prayed in some way during their lifetime. The use of a crucifix or a cross is recommended in obtaining this plenary indulgence. In such a situation the three usual conditions required in order to gain a plenary indulgence are substituted for by the condition "provided they regularly prayed in some way." The Christian faithful can obtain the plenary indulgence mentioned here as death approaches (in articulo mortis) even if they had already obtained another plenary indulgence that same day."

So I would assume you would support a works based grace if you believe what was stated previously.

Can someone get an indulgence without giving money? If so can you give me a refernce?

Wow! You did some research! Good for you!

I have a simple answer to your question, and it is in the quote you provided me in the above. Do you see the mention of money anywhere in it?

Doesn't the issue of indulgences just smack of Benny Hinn manipulation?

Well, for one thing, you agree with me in my distrust of Benny Hinn!

But first of all, do you really know what an indulgence is? Let's take a look:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

I copy one important phrase from it that is significant:

Quote…

But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to [font color=blue]sin[/font], the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.

Unquote…

What is somewhat mysterious to non-Catholics is the issue of punishment due to sins, even while those sins are forgiven. A priest may forgive me of the sin of stealing from another, and grant me absolution but I must make restitution for the sin (usually, this is insisted upon by the priest before absolution is given, called retaining the sin per John 20:23). A better example is the sin of adultery committed by David. God forgave him but nevertheless God punished him with the death of his son. An indulgence is a granting of the punishment due to sins by prayer, piety, giving of alms, good works, visiting shrines, etc., and the Church, from the storehouse of graces she has from the prayers over the centuries of good monks nuns, and holy people, (the "economy" of God's graces) the Church, using the power of "binding and loosing," can grant indulgences of so many days (a "day" being equivalent to days of penance that might have been assigned in the confessional for a given sin) by doing certain specified acts of piety. Saying the Stations of the Cross during Lent, for example, was good for so many days of penance of indulgence. A plenary indulgence being that specific act of piety that removes all punishment due to sins.

You said you were a Catholic. Do you remember any of this being taught to you in school? (I am assuming you went to a Catholic school or attended catachetical instructions after hours if you were a public school student.)

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

I previously said:

How many times have you had it explained to you that to honor Mary is not to worship her, but to simply acknowledge the wonderful place in God's divine plan that an ordinary human would achieve such a stature? That is not making her a God (or a "Goddess") anymore then when I honor my own Mother who I think is now in heaven with God! I still have a well-worn bible she used to read daily, the binder nearly broken completely and the finish worn to the fare cardboard make up of it's cover as a wonderful "relic" of my mother, but none of this makes her a God (or "Goddess") anymore then the veneration we give to the Blessed Mother, the very Theotokos, or "Godbearer" that we esteem her above all men.

Jesus is God, when we worship as God; Mary is his esteemed mother!

Then why do so many Catholics have statues of Mary at their homes and in their cars? Why do I see and hear Catholics praying to Mary? Whomever you pray to, isn't that the same as worshiping that person or deity? In secular letters during Paul's day there were prayers to deities. But Paul's prayers in his letters were to God never anyone of anything else.

Did you happen to notice other statuary of Jesus and the other saints, or perhaps icons of Jesus, the Holy Family or whatever? Do you have a picture of your mom in your wallet, qb? Or how about your wife and children? Do you worship them, qb? Of course not!

In my house, I do not have a statue of Mary, but I do have a small "Holy Family" statue of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I have a Eastern Church Icon of Mary, as well as Jesus, given to my by a Russian Orthodox priest (which acts as a reminder me to pray for the eventual grand reunion of our two great communities one of these days.)

I do not worship them. They are not idols. When I look on the Holy Family Statuette, it reminds me of the emphasis the Church has on family life, and as exemplified by Jesus and his earthly parents. And I don't "pray to it" as an idol either, but it does remind me to pray for good family life, the health of my wonderful wife and the welfare of my adult children.

When we construct a statue to actually become an idol, we actually worship ourselves in that idol! That is why I extend the meaning of idolatry to mean the worship of self, our money and possessions.

That is indeed, idolatry…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:

Never, in all the Bible, are we to follow another person's or organization's interpretation, such as the RCC.

Seriously? Then the unconverted Jews and Gentiles should have ignored the Apostles and just interpreted the OT on their own?

And once converted, should they have just ignored the Apostles teachings?</font>[/QUOTE]Acts 17:11 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.

In all cases they were to follow this Scriptural pattern. Check the Word first. Then believe. The Word of God held first place in each believer's life, even in the early church, even when it was Paul that was speaking to them or any of the other Apostles speaking to them.

Remember, these men were not perfect. They were sinners. They made mistakes. Peter was rebuked by Paul, as recorded in Galatians. Paul says about his own struggles:

Romans 7:14-19
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Paul had a struggle with sin. He was not perfect. The rule was to check the Word first. Make sure that the Word of God is in harmony with what the speaker says. This is the reason that Priscilla and Aauilla took Apollos aside. Not everything that he said was correct, ever though he was a powerful speaker for the Lord.

No man has all the deposit of truth.

Do you include yourself in this, DHK?

Of course I do. On reading this statement as it is it seems a bit ambiguous to me, so let me clarify it. We all have the "deposit" of faith, in that we all have the Bible. The Bible is the only revelation that God has left us. All that we need to know is in the Bible. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It is God's revelation to mankind. We all have that "deposit" of faith.

But no one person has complete understanding of that book. The Bible itself says that the Scriptures are of no private interpretation, and yet the RCC have their own private interpretation, which no other Catholic is allowed to challege. This is true of all the cults. It was never meant to be. For the Bible itself commands personal Bible study. "Study to show yourselves approved unto God." "Search the Scriptures," not the church fathers, or tradition.

Are you admitting that you are on the board teaching error because you do not have all the deposit of faith?

No, I don't teach error on the board. I do have all the deposit of faith in that I have all the Bible, but there are many things in the Bible I don't understand. The things I don't understand I try to keep quiet on.

What if OSAS is a false teaching?

It is not a false teaching, but clearly taught in the word of God. Any person that does not understand the doctrine of the eternal securtiy of the believer does not understand salvation.

Will you be also accountable for all the souls that you harmed with that teaching?

If I teach the truth I harm no one, only help them.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
The Bible is the only revelation that God has left us. All that we need to know is in the Bible. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It is God's revelation to mankind. We all have that "deposit" of faith.

Unfortunately, it requires interpretation, does it not?

But no one person has complete understanding of that book. The Bible itself says that the Scriptures are of no private interpretation, and yet the RCC have their own private interpretation, which no other Catholic is allowed to challege. This is true of all the cults. It was never meant to be. For the Bible itself commands personal Bible study. "Study to show yourselves approved unto God." "Search the Scriptures," not the church fathers, or tradition.

And DHK and his little local church have their private interpretation too. Are you forgetting our past discussion about your churches infalible faith statement?

No, I don't teach error on the board. I do have all the deposit of faith in that I have all the Bible, but there are many things in the Bible I don't understand. The things I don't understand I try to keep quiet on.

Considering that you must first interprete Scripture, the best that you can honestly say is that you hope that you ar not teaching error. Unless you are infallible?

It is not a false teaching, but clearly taught in the word of God. Any person that does not understand the doctrine of the eternal securtiy of the believer does not understand salvation.

OSAS is your personal interpretation of Scripture.

Obviously, it is not as plain in Scripture as you would like to pretend. There are many Christians, even Baptists, who argue against it from Scripture.

If I teach the truth I harm no one, only help them.

Thats a pretty big "if".

 

[A_Christian]

Interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit and
since the Bible is the Word of God, it must not
conflict.

So a Christian must get a personal interpretation
from a personal GOD through the person of the
Holy Spirit, or the Christian is at the mercy of
the personal interpretation of others----even a bad and evil pope.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Unfortunately, it requires interpretation, does it not?

More accurately put: There is only one interpretation, and that is God's. Our duty is to rightly divide the Word of Truth (2Tim.2:15). We are never commanded to interpret the Scriptures, but to rightly divide them. It is God that has the interpretation. Our duty is to find out what it is. The Bible here compares us to a laborer or carpenter who makes a beautiful finished piece of furniture. But all the pieces of the furniture must fit perfectly together, be planded, sanded, varnished. Everything must fit together properly or else the workman will be ashamed when he tries to sell his piece of work. Many Christians are ashamed when they try to present the gospel.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to evey man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."
--Not many can give an answer to every man that asks a reason of the hope that is in them. They don't study. They just rely on being spoonfed by the organization they belong to.

They have no practical experience in being a workman. Thus they are ashamed when the work has to be done. They don't know how the pieces are fit together, nor how the finishing work is done.

They don't know how to rightly divide the word of truth, because they simply rely on someone else to do it for them.

And DHK and his little local church have their private interpretation too. Are you forgetting our past discussion about your churches infalible faith statement?

Again, you have it wrong. Every man is accountable to God for what he believes, and acts upon. If you want to believe that Satan is God that is your business. If you want to believe that Michael the archangel is God that is your business. But you won't be members of our church. Our church are people that are like-minded in faith. If you don't like what we believe you have total soul liberty to go anywhere you want to. We don't force anyone to believe anything. If a person thinks that he can no longer agree or fit in with our doctrines he is the one that will eventually leave. We very rarely have to ask someone to leave. It is the other way around. They leave because they don't agree with our doctrine.

Belief is personal. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit guides me into a right belief as I study His Word. Isn't it marvellous how we all agree on the same thing, being led by the Holy Spirit?

No, I don't teach error on the board. I do have all the deposit of faith in that I have all the Bible, but there are many things in the Bible I don't understand. The things I don't understand I try to keep quiet on.

Considering that you must first interprete Scripture, the best that you can honestly say is that you hope that you ar not teaching error. Unless you are infallible?

I don't interpret. I take the Bible for what it says. I harmonize Scripture. I rightly divide the Word of Truth, as the Bible commands me to. I don't sit passively by and let some group of sinful men dictate my beliefs for me. I obey the Bible in studying it for myself for I know that someday I will stand before God and give account of myself for they way that I have obeyed the Scripture, on the basis that I personally have understood it.
Understand this and understand it well

In that Judgment Day, the RCC will not be able to stand before God in your place. You alone will stand before God, and give account for yourself, on how well you have obeyed the Scriptures according to YOUR understanding.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
OSAS is your personal interpretation of Scripture.

It is a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth, and not interpretation. It is a matter of having a proper understanding of salvation.

Obviously, it is not as plain in Scripture as you would like to pretend. There are many Christians, even Baptists, who argue against it from Scripture.

There are many sincere Baptists that are wrong on some things.

If I teach the truth I harm no one, only help them.

Thats a pretty big "if".

When it comes to the heresies of Catholicism, there is not even an "if" involved.
DHK

 

[Ray Berrian]

The Apostle Paul in writing Timothy seems to point out what the Christian faith is to be built upon. Of course, Christ but also words coming from Him, which we call the Word of God. Thus we have in II Timothy 3:15-17 the fact that Timothy had known the Scriptures from his childhood.

How much of God's Word is inspired? Paul says all Scripture is inspired by Almighty God. If the man of God is to be complete he must know the Word from Genesis to Revelation.

The Apostle Paul and the Apostolic Fathers do not speak of traditions that come from human agency; truth come only from the true Agent, Jesus Christ.

We have a hymn that expresses truth.

'On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus Name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand.' {Matthew 7:24-27; I Peter 2:6}

The hymn is inspiring but is not inspired like the books of the Bible are inspired.

Why do we say that our faith must be built on the Bible? Because of I Timothy 3:15-17.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
It is a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth, and not interpretation.

Ok, DHK. If it will make it easier for you, in the future I will try to remember to say, "That is merely your personal version of dividing of the word of truth."

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
It is a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth, and not interpretation.

Ok, DHK. If it will make it easier for you, in the future I will try to remember to say, "That is merely your personal version of dividing of the word of truth." </font>[/QUOTE]So around and around you go with such anemic excuses:
"That's your interpretation"
"That's merely your personal version."

If what I have said is contrary to what the Bible teaches then demonstrate it to be so. Use the Bible. "Be able to give an answer to every man that asks of the reason ..."
Demonstrate that what I have said is contrary to what the Bible teaches.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
So around and around you go with such anemic excuses:
"That's your interpretation"
"That's merely your personal version."

If what I have said is contrary to what the Bible teaches then demonstrate it to be so. Use the Bible. "Be able to give an answer to every man that asks of the reason ..."
Demonstrate that what I have said is contrary to what the Bible teaches.
DHK

DHK, I am not at present debating with you any particular point of Scripture.

What I am attempting to do is to remind you that your interpretation of Scripture or the manner in which you personally divide Scripture is just that: your personal interpretation/dividing.

You pick the verse that you think supports your position.

You pick the other verses that you think back up that verse.

You pick the meaning of individual words when it suits your need.

You decide for yourself what is allegorical and what is literal.

You decide what is symbolic and what is not.

My point is that your system of belief is largely based on your personal opinion of what the Bible says.

You deny this everytime you declare your personal opinion to actually be the Bible.

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

You decide...

My point is that your system of belief is largely based on your personal opinion of what the Bible says.

You deny this everytime you declare your personal opinion to actually be the Bible.

I agree. And that is why Anglicanism has the 'three-legged stool' of Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

 

[A_Christian]

trying2understand:

And you don't think your pope does just that,
EVEN in the area of apostolic succession. I'm
here to tell you that apostolic succession
(if it ever existed) ended with the establishment
of Christ's CHURCH and the closure of the Biblical
cannon with John's Revelation of Christ.

We NOW have the complete WORD of GOD. The job of
the apostiles was finished with their deaths.
We ALL have access to everything GOD wanted us to
hear through HIS Word. The job of establishment
of the CHURCH and gathering memories of what
Christ taught is TOTALLY completed. We just
follow need to follow HIS Word and not the words
or traditions surrounding a pope...

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
trying2understand:

And you don't think your pope does just that,
EVEN in the area of apostolic succession. I'm
here to tell you that apostolic succession
(if it ever existed) ended with the establishment
of Christ's CHURCH and the closure of the Biblical
cannon with John's Revelation of Christ.

We NOW have the complete WORD of GOD. The job of
the apostiles was finished with their deaths.
We ALL have access to everything GOD wanted us to
hear through HIS Word. The job of establishment
of the CHURCH and gathering memories of what
Christ taught is TOTALLY completed. We just
follow need to follow HIS Word and not the words
or traditions surrounding a pope...

God just put the church on autopilot then. Every man and his bible? What about the shepherds he said he was going to give us who will give us KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING? Jer 3:15. Men after his own heart who would give us knowledge and understanding. You might say well that was the Apostles. All well and good and true, the verse does apply to them for Jesus said to Peter "feed my sheep". But did it end with the Apostles? Careful before you answer that one .

Acts 20:28
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to SHEPHERD the church of God which He purchased with His own blood

1 Peter 5:2
SHEPHERD the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;


Was the great commission "to the ends of the earth" in Matt 28 completed with the Apostles. No. So their mission was not completed with their death and required successors. Shepherds to protect the flock against the wolves.

Blessings

 

[A_Christian]

The Bible is the PERFECT Word of GOD.

I Corinthians 13:8-13

LOVE never fails. BUT where there are prophecies,
they will cease; where there are tongues, they
will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will
pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy
in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect
disappears.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
me. Now we see but a poor reflection; then we
shall see face to face. Now I know in part;
then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three REMAIN: faith, hope and love.
But the greatest of these is love.

-----------------------------------------------
REVELATIONS was the LAST prophetic book. In fact
it was the last book of scripture written. Did
the Apostles prophesy? Did the Apostles speak in
tongues? Did the the Apostles remember and
understand the knowledge of Christ?

Who is writing scripture today? Who is establishing Christ's Church? Who is speaking in
tongues as a sign and a witness to visitors from
foreign countries in town? NNE. It has
ceased. Let's grow up and become responsible
Christians----servants of Christ and not a pope....

 

[thessalonian]

A_Christian

I agree with you that the Bible is the Word of God. But could you please show me a verse that says that the Bible is the WHOLE WORD OF GOD. In light of 2 Thes 2:15 and the last verse in 3 John I would be interested in such a verse. By the way you avoided my exegesis of the Jerimiah verse. Do we not need these shepherds that God has provided? Who are they?

"Who is writing scripture today?"

Noone silly. The Catholic Church says the canon of scripture is closed but it is apprent that not everyone has the knowledge and understanding that God provides through men after his own heart. A question you avoided well.

"Who is establishing Christ's Church? "

So it was completely established throughout the word by the time the Apostles died. It had spread to the ends of the earth? Even America? Are you equating his Church with a book?

"Who is speaking in
tongues as a sign and a witness to visitors from
foreign countries in town? NNE."

"Let's grow up and become responsible
Christians----servants of Christ and not a pope.... "

The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. He serves us. The last shall be first. I do not run around looking for what the Pope wants me to do.

Blessings

[ October 01, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, I am not at present debating with you any particular point of Scripture.

What I am attempting to do is to remind you that your interpretation of Scripture or the manner in which you personally divide Scripture is just that: your personal interpretation/dividing.

You pick the verse that you think supports your position.

You pick the other verses that you think back up that verse.

You pick the meaning of individual words when it suits your need.

You decide for yourself what is allegorical and what is literal.

You decide what is symbolic and what is not.

My point is that your system of belief is largely based on your personal opinion of what the Bible says.

You deny this everytime you declare your personal opinion to actually be the Bible.

Ironically, you do the exactly the same thing, and the turn around without even realizing it, and say that the RCC did it for me therefore I am without excuse.

At least Brother Ed has the intestinal fortitude to come out and address the Scripture presented, when he does. He is about the only Catholic on this board that does so. He doesn't (like you do) shrink back behind a veil of excuses such as, "That's your interpretation."
DHK
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
He doesn't (like you do) shrink back behind a veil of excuses such as, "That's your interpretation."

No excuses, DHK.

Just giving you a reality check.

You now seem to be admitting that it is "merely your interpretation" after all.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
He doesn't (like you do) shrink back behind a veil of excuses such as, "That's your interpretation."

No excuses, DHK.

Just giving you a reality check.

You now seem to be admitting that it is "merely your interpretation" after all. </font>[/QUOTE]May I remind you T2U, that the topic of this thread is:
I will build my Church
NOT
DHK'S Interpretation

You fail to address the topic at hand. You cannot defend your position from a Biblical point of view. You are at a loss when it comes to the definition of the word ekklesia, translated "church," but the meaning thereof is "assembly." This is not opinion; it is not "my interpretation," and has nothing to do with interpretation. Look it up in a Greek dictionary or lexicon. That is the meaning of the word. It refers to a local assembly such as it is used in Acts 19 when all the crowd was in an uproar and "assembled" in the theater, because of the preaching of Paul. The mayor had to dismiss the "assembly." It is a group that is assembled together in one place, and can never be applied to an organization worldwide, that cannot be assembled. It is not my interpretation. It is the definition of the word that you have to deal with.

The Bible was written in Koine Greek, the Common Greek of the common people, to make common sense. But the Catholic Church wants to take common sense and out of it make nonsense, for which they have no defense, and their only offence is to offer ridicule or "It is your interpretation and not ours." Pitiful!
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
But the Catholic Church wants to take common sense and out of it make nonsense,

Purely opinion.

Originally posted by DHK:
for which they have no defense, and their only offence is to offer ridicule or "It is your interpretation and not ours." Pitiful!
DHK

Purely opinion, and a false one at that. Our "only" defense? I may be Catholic, but I'm not stupid.