The unofficial ask a Christian thread

[gst528i]

So what if there is a person who is one of the nicest and kindest people in the world and does all they can to help others, but is not religious at all. They believe that there is no god.

So they cannot be sent to heaven then right? but how could someone like that be sent to hell? Or will they be sent to neither of them since they believe in neither heaven or hell?

You asked the same question i did in the ask muslim thread. I always think that all religions are wrong about this as they will be biased in trying to get you have faith in their religion.
If God truly is an perfect as he is, and made us far from perfection than i don't see how he can have people that do good deeds not because they read it in the bible, but do it out of the kindness in their hearts would go to hell just because you did not believe in organized religion. But have those who confess thier sins go to heaven.

[FLAMEHAIREDADONIS]

You asked the same question i did in the ask muslim thread. I always think that all religions are wrong about this as they will be biased in trying to get you have faith in their religion.
If God truly is an perfect as he is, and made us far from perfection than i don't see how he can have people that do good deeds not because they read it in the bible, but do it out of the kindness in their hearts would go to hell just because you did not believe in organized religion. But have those who confess thier sins go to heaven.

So basically you pick and choose what you wish to believe in the bible. This cracks me up. Christian point out the bible calls homosexuality an abomination but totally ignore that it also says the same thing about shell fish or that you should not let menstruating women into church. It is time to stop showing respect to people who proclaim things to be true without evidence. The truth is that no one knows what happens to us when we die how do I know this because you do not possess special mental powers that I do (Bill MAHER).

[gst528i]

So basically you pick and choose what you wish to believe in the bible. This cracks me up. Christian point out the bible calls homosexuality an abomination but totally ignore that it also says the same thing about shell fish or that you should not let menstruating women into church. It is time to stop showing respect to people who proclaim things to be true without evidence. The truth is that no one knows what happens to us when we die how do I know this because you do not possess special mental powers that I do (Bill MAHER).

I have never read the bible, i am not christian or any other religion. I am not saying you pick and read what you want to believe. Sorry i ddin't say it right.
I meant a person living his life to the best of his abilities. I can not say without commiting sin since he or she doesn;t read the bible. But lead a life without harming other, stealing you things any sane person can comnprehend to be right vs wrong.

[D7M]

So you are saying that it isn't there? Pretty clear the bible calls Jesus god's son hundreds of times.

No, no. The doctrine is there. Definitely. Just not the word "trinity".

Nor it is expressed in the terms I used.

Jesus also says, "I and the Father are one"....but he doesn't talk about divine subsistent relations. See my point?

[Squatman51]

another way to word it is that I think the bible is a good way to teach you how to live your life, however I do not believe alot of the stories in it and don't believe that a person goes to heaven or hell. If i live my life somewhat by the bible in perspective of being the best person I can on earth, what happens to someone like me when I die if I have no faith of the lord, heaven, hell or anything like that?

[D7M]

another way to word it is that I think the bible is a good way to teach you how to live your life, however I do not believe alot of the stories in it and don't believe that a person goes to heaven or hell. If i live my life somewhat by the bible in perspective of being the best person I can on earth, what happens to someone like me when I die if I have no faith of the lord, heaven, hell or anything like that?

alright, well I respect your beliefs, bro.

This was at the heart of that other thread 'what happens when you die if you're not religious'....even the title betrays itself.

the way I look at is this...the existence of these realities are not dependent upon a contingent beings' belief system. In other words, heaven or hell exist whether you believe in them or not.

see what I mean?

[FallenWyvern]

Me and my wife are one...

Just saying that Jews don't believe in Trinity. And when you read NT at face value it isn't there clearly. Even the ones that are like the one you quoted speak to duality. Who was Jesus praying to?

[D7M]

Me and my wife are one...

Just saying that Jews don't believe in Trinity. And when you read NT at face value it isn't there clearly. Even the ones that are like the one you quoted speak to duality. Who was Jesus praying to?

Ok, now I see what you're getting at. I wasn't really sure before.

You're right, Jews don't believe in the Trinity, since it was part of Christian revelation.

Probably the clearest biblical reference to the trinity is from Matt 28 (amcon quoted this earlier I think)..."go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." From the use of the terms themselves, it's clear that the three persons are distinct, as the terms are mutually exclusive. Further, with the inclusion of the Holy Spirit as a third person, it shows that this third person is co-equal with the other two persons. Similarly, he (Jesus) does not say, "in the names" but "in the name" of the three persons, indicating God's unity.

John's Gospel has very clear references to Christ's divinity. And further in the NT, the writings of St. Paul and the other apostles make distinct references to the existence of a triune God.

Beyond this, there is definitive evidence from the earliest Church fathers that the belief in the Trinity was a widely held and revered Christian belief.

As I said before, Catholics don't *have* to prove doctrines only from Scripture alone. So, at the end of John's Gospel, he says, "But there are also many other things that Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Indicating an oral tradition as well as a written tradition.

[FLAMEHAIREDADONIS]

Why do Christians expend more "moral" energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide. Why are christians concerned about non-sentient human embryos than about the lifesaving promise of stem-cell research.

Why does God have an obsession with consentual nonharmful sexual activities? Hence preaching against condom use in sub-Saharan Africa while millions die from AIDS there each year. HPV causes nearly two hundred thousand women to die each year from cervical cancer. We have a vaccine for HPV but christians have stopped a vacination program due to beliefs it will encourage pre-marital sex.

Could go on look forward to your dogmatic/metaphysical reply.

[fit4ever]

You know why people get so uptight about religion or spiritual beliefs? It's because we want all people to see the world through our own eyes. Because in our own opinion, we have the best view of the world as well as the best seat in the house. And if you're seeing it differently, it's human instinct to encourage someone to "jump ship" so they can experience the world the same way that you do.

[BuffedGuy]

Why are you answering question in this thread????this is not meant to be hate full!!!

Peace be unto you, Prone2Rage.

You are the second person to message me with this, so I'll just respond here. I only answered one single question in this entire thread, which was "what is the oldest known religion in the world?" That question had nothing to do with Christianity, and so I answered. Sue me! Sheesh!

There is not a single other question I've "answered" in this thread. I understand it is Derek's and I respect that.

As for what you just called hateful, how is my post hateful? I'm not even criticizing Christianity in it. Rather, I was merely trying to show that the intuitive understanding one gets from reading that Biblical verse is that it is critical of homosexuality; that isn't meant to induce hatred of Christianity, since my own religion says the exact same thing.

Hope that clears up the matter. Having said that, I think Derek is bored with questions on the same topic, so I think we can move on, God-Willing.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Prone2Rage.

You are the second person to message me with this, so I'll just respond here. I only answered one single question in this entire thread, which was "what is the oldest known religion in the world?" That question had nothing to do with Christianity, and so I answered. Sue me! Sheesh!

There is not a single other question I've "answered" in this thread. I understand it is Derek's and I respect that.

As for what you just called hateful, how is my post hateful? I'm not even criticizing Christianity in it. Rather, I was merely trying to show that the intuitive understanding one gets from reading that Biblical verse is that it is critical of homosexuality; that isn't meant to induce hatred of Christianity, since my own religion says the exact same thing.

Hope that clears up the matter. Having said that, I think Derek is bored with questions on the same topic, so I think we can move on, God-Willing.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

It didn't bother me at all that you answered.

But I read prone as saying his post to you was not meant to be hateful....

[BuffedGuy]

But I read prone as saying his post to you was not meant to be hateful....

Ahhhhh, whoops! I misread his post. Sorry about that, prone2rage.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

By what method do you determine the difference between the voice of God, and the voice of the Devil pretending to be God?

and

Is it possible that the devout Catholic, Adolph Hitler, could be in heaven if he had truly repented prior to his death?

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Can you explain to me the mainstream Christian view towards the Old Testament and the Law? Are these two things (the OT and Law) applicable today? I suspect the answer is in between yes and no, so can you tell me to what degree exactly? Just give some elaboration on this matter, God-Willing.

Thanks.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Can you explain to me the mainstream Christian view towards the Old Testament and the Law? Are these two things (the OT and Law) applicable today? I suspect the answer is in between yes and no, so can you tell me to what degree exactly? Just give some elaboration on this matter, God-Willing.

Thanks.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

good question, buff.

it's funny, I was actually just talking to someone about this the other day. he was saying how its politically incorrect to talk speak in terms of supersessionism. I argued against him saying that it's not politically incorrect, it's just a matter of fact.

Anyway....while the Decalogue (the 10 Commandments) still form a foundational part of christian moral theology, the customs and practices are no longer binding on Christians. So, yes, Christians can eat cheese burgers (which of course an orthodox Jew would not). Things like that are no longer applicable under the New Law (of grace).

Didn't we talk about this in another thread. About the 'council' of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

[Voland]

During the Spanish civil war and long dictatorship Catholic priests colaborated with the dictatorial regime, offered prayers for well known mass assassins and persecuted anyone who was not an active christian. My greatgrandfather was almost killed (he had to exile) for being oppenly pagan. My mom was forced to baptise(i mean literally forced, with cops guarding inside the church) and the priest asked my grandparents to change my mom's name cos the present one was not biblical. How's all that coherent with the christian message of tolerance and so on.

Never forget.

[D7M]

Hey GZA,

Thanks for handling that one. nicely done.

I must've missed Amcon's last post.

But I completely agree with your post. Well put.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of an intra-denomination dispute, but we'll see where this goes...

[GZA]

Hey GZA,

Thanks for handling that one. nicely done.

I must've missed Amcon's last post.

But I completely agree with your post. Well put.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of an intra-denomination dispute, but we'll see where this goes...

Yeah, maybe I should have backed off a bit, sorry about that one :P

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

I am going to ask a zinger here. Let me know what you think:

I just listened to an interview with Dr. Bart Ehrman, a Bible scholar at the University of North Carolina. The clip is available here:

http://thedeenshow.com/gameshow.html

It is the first audio clip, numbered #28, and entitled "Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture." If you skip to 27:00, Dr. Ehrman says that there is only one single verse in the Bible that explicitly mentions the concept of the Trinity, namely:

For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7

Then he talks about how this verse is fabricated and was added into the Bible by a scribe. He also says that almost all Biblical scholars agree with this, and that is the reason that this verse does not appear in ANY of the recent translations of the Bibles like the New Revised Standard Version, NIV, etc. It was added by a scribe who wished to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity.

I say:

1) Does not the fact that a Christian scribe felt the need to add a verse like this to bolster the doctrine of Trinity show that there is insufficient proof in the Bible for said doctrine? You (Derek) said earlier in this thread that although the word Trinity appears nowhere in the Bible, there is "most definitely" proof for the concept. But it seems that this scribe did not at all feel this way, and this is why he added it in. In other words, if there had been enough proof for this concept, he would not have felt compelled to add it, and neither would the Christians have been so reluctant to remove it after it was found out to be false.

2) If a Christian scribe fabricated a verse about the Trinity, then why would it be a stretch for us to say that the concept of Trinity could also be a fabricated doctrine that did not appear at the time of Prophet Jesus [as]? It does very much lend credence to the idea that Christians have historically fabricated their texts to support the Trinity concept.

3) Christians often admit that the Bible has textual errors, but they argue back that the textual errors are minor and do not affect the meaning of the Bible. I would argue that this verse is not at all minor. Rather, it seems very major. After all, the scribe who added it was trying to justify a doctrine about it. It's not just a minor grammatical error...it's a purposeful addition intended to change the meaning, so much so that the first person to take it out was almost killed on charges of heresy.

Your response?

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

good question.

I'll answer this tonight, as I will be busy nearly all day. *sigh*

Btw, you never got to one of my questions in your ask a Muslim thread

[BuffedGuy]

good question.

I'll answer this tonight, as I will be busy nearly all day. *sigh*

Btw, you never got to one of my questions in your ask a Muslim thread

Oh yeah, the one about the End of Times? OK, let me get to that now, God-Willing.

[amcon]

Oh yeah, the one about the End of Times? OK, let me get to that now, God-Willing.

pm me when that is done i will love to read it... i am going to do some end times in my response to this chatholic thread...tomorrow it is going to be amazing !!!

[D7M]

pm me when that is done i will love to read it... i am going to do some end times in my response to this chatholic thread...tomorrow it is going to be amazing !!!

you're a dispensationalist. I already know what you're going to say.

[amcon]

what would define fall from grace? "I think you are refering to what Catholics would call "Original Sin" and our "fall from grace". "Loosing the holy ghost" isn't exactly how we'd put it so, like derek, I didn't follow what you were talking about either until I thought about it a minute."

loss of what?

we are in the dispensation of what now? (hint = grace)

what happens when we recieve grace? (hint = holy spirit fills us?)

and fyi i am flaming catholics just helping people find God(and as you know acts of man, acts of tradition doesnt = saved by grace)

[amcon]

I can't speak for derek but this is a charge many people attempt to level against Catholics(it is a fair "charge" you would be only fooling your self if you state that catholics read their bibles - they count on the priest to do that for them and it is tought that the "layman" cant understand the bible). Most well informed Catholics would answer yes they have read the bible all the way through(define "well informed... very inaccurate statement for 98% of caths). A well informed Catholic would generally actually tend to think of your average Protestant as reading their bible for sure, as I'm sure you do, but with a very limited understanding of all the technicalities involved in truly grasping the meaning of the bible

(rediculus statement - 1 Timothy 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God does not want some to understand, but others are incapable. He wants all to know the truth.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 - The Scriptures were revealed by God to teach and instruct us in righteousness and provide us to all good works.

about timothy - timothy was on of the first second-generation christians. he becane a christina not because an evangelist preached a powerful sermon, or a priest did the eurqurest(sp) and tim was impressed with the tradition... BUT because his mother and his grandmother tought him the holy scriptures when he was young boy. we all realize that teaching small children is an opportunity and a responsibility. Jesus wanted little children to come to him(mat 19: 13-15) like timothy's mother and grandmother, a long time a go, (eunice an lois) the lay man or woman need to read their bible so they can lead people to Christ.

Romans 1:16 - The gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

Titus 1:1-3 - God manifested (make known) His word in the message which was entrusted to Paul according to God's command.

So God wants everyone to know His will, and the inspired men revealed His will so people could know it.

[Romans 16:26; Col. 1:24-29]). For example, you claim "denominations mean nothing, just read your bible" but where does the bible make that statement?(thats the point where does it say denominations mean something? maybe, in revelation of Jesus Christ? the 7 churches? not names but clearly showing 7 diff churches...) It's nowhere to be found.(just showed it to you) So your view would therefore be considered "unbiblical" (unless of course you have a verse to show me(just did - start and 1:1)). Most people at that time didn't even know how to read and you claim Jesus' message was "go and read your bibles"?(really? i think Jesus' messages what the great commandment mark 12:30) Printing presses didn't even exist and scrolls of text had to be laboriously hand written so the cost of any such "bible" (which didn't even exist at the time) which they were supposedly supposed to go read would be impossible to afford for most people. So what were the people to do? learn to read, become rich and buy a bible that they recieved from their time machine from hundreds of years in the future? Early Christianity simply didn't work like that. The Church was given authority by Jesus Christ to teach. The Bible was written by the Church(you know that the bible was inspired by God right? and written by the divine grace of God?) for the Church using the authority it was given by Jesus.(where doest the bible say that? wooo, ive got my work cut out with this...)

(brother i wonder you knowledge and your faith after you blasphomy statement - i will quote may God soften you ears to receive the message... with love... please except the Lord - 2 timothy 3: 16 - "All scripture is give by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:")

[D7M]

I can't speak for derek but this is a charge many people attempt to level against Catholics(it is a fair "charge" you would be only fooling your self if you state that catholics read their bibles - they count on the priest to do that for them and it is tought that the "layman" cant understand the bible). Most well informed Catholics would answer yes they have read the bible all the way through(define "well informed... very inaccurate statement for 98% of caths). A well informed Catholic would generally actually tend to think of your average Protestant as reading their bible for sure, as I'm sure you do, but with a very limited understanding of all the technicalities involved in truly grasping the meaning of the bible

(rediculus statement - 1 Timothy 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God does not want some to understand, but others are incapable. He wants all to know the truth.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 - The Scriptures were revealed by God to teach and instruct us in righteousness and provide us to all good works.

about timothy - timothy was on of the first second-generation christians. he becane a christina not because an evangelist preached a powerful sermon, or a priest did the eurqurest(sp) and tim was impressed with the tradition... BUT because his mother and his grandmother tought him the holy scriptures when he was young boy. we all realize that teaching small children is an opportunity and a responsibility. Jesus wanted little children to come to him(mat 19: 13-15) like timothy's mother and grandmother, a long time a go, (eunice an lois) the lay man or woman need to read their bible so they can lead people to Christ.

Romans 1:16 - The gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

Titus 1:1-3 - God manifested (make known) His word in the message which was entrusted to Paul according to God's command.

So God wants everyone to know His will, and the inspired men revealed His will so people could know it.

[Romans 16:26; Col. 1:24-29]). For example, you claim "denominations mean nothing, just read your bible" but where does the bible make that statement?(thats the point where does it say denominations mean something? maybe, in revelation of Jesus Christ? the 7 churches? not names but clearly showing 7 diff churches...) It's nowhere to be found.(just showed it to you) So your view would therefore be considered "unbiblical" (unless of course you have a verse to show me(just did - start and 1:1)). Most people at that time didn't even know how to read and you claim Jesus' message was "go and read your bibles"?(really? i think Jesus' messages what the great commandment mark 12:30) Printing presses didn't even exist and scrolls of text had to be laboriously hand written so the cost of any such "bible" (which didn't even exist at the time) which they were supposedly supposed to go read would be impossible to afford for most people. So what were the people to do? learn to read, become rich and buy a bible that they recieved from their time machine from hundreds of years in the future? Early Christianity simply didn't work like that. The Church was given authority by Jesus Christ to teach. The Bible was written by the Church(you know that the bible was inspired by God right? and written by the divine grace of God?) for the Church using the authority it was given by Jesus.(where doest the bible say that? wooo, ive got my work cut out with this...)

(brother i wonder you knowledge and your faith after you blasphomy statement - i will quote may God soften you ears to receive the message... with love... please except the Lord - 2 timothy 3: 16 - "All scripture is give by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:")

Amcon,

to your first paragraph: It's clear you're criticizing a religion you know very little about. I'm not flaming you by any means. This seems to be the case particularly b/c I was raised Protestant, and subsequently converted to Catholicism. As a Protestant, I always criticized them, but when I actually began to study Catholicism, I realized that my criticism were actually completely unfounded. The point is that while historically, Protestants have put much more emphasis on the word (scriptures) this does not directly mean that Catholics simply "believe what the priest tells them". In a sense we do, b/c the our priests, like your pastors, have undergone serious study to be able to explain the scriptures. In all reality, our priests expounding scripture to us is no different than you accepting what your pastor says.

Further, the verses you quoted don't directly answer Gza's objections. Of course God wants all men to know him. But the Bible itself no where says that it (the Bible) is to be the sole rule of faith. In fact, it says the opposite. It clearly states (in verses I've already listed) that there is indeed an oral tradition, and St. Peter even attests how difficult Paul's letters are to understand.

Finally, since I have a back-log of posts here. I didn't see anything blasphemous about Gza's statement. What exactly did you find problematic?

[amcon]

Amcon,

to your first paragraph: It's clear you're criticizing a religion you know very little about. I'm not flaming you by any means. This seems to be the case particularly b/c I was raised Protestant, and subsequently converted to Catholicism. As a Protestant, I always criticized them, but when I actually began to study Catholicism, I realized that my criticism were actually completely unfounded. The point is that while historically, Protestants have put much more emphasis on the word (scriptures) this does not directly mean that Catholics simply "believe what the priest tells them". In a sense we do, b/c the our priests, like your pastors, have undergone serious study to be able to explain the scriptures. In all reality, our priests expounding scripture to us is no different than you accepting what your pastor says.

#1 - you were protestant before ? what was the denomination?

#2 - yes i put emphasis on the Word of God... not the bible, faith in God our Lord not the bible...

#3 - i study the bible... to learn about the Word - however my faith is in Christ

i have studied caths extensively... ask my polish in laws, they are both saved and still roman catholic. because they no longer have faith in a man (the pope or a priest, but faith in Christ - they also dont pray to any one else but the Father, or pratice in idol worship any more (example: black madona)) i will use dark green for buffed - he lost his three d glasses

Further, the verses you quoted don't directly answer Gza's objections. Of course God wants all men to know him.(---question answered then) But the Bible itself no where says that it (the Bible) is to be the sole rule of faith(correct and now we agree!! faith must be applied to Jesus, the perfect bible tells God word). In fact, it says the opposite. It clearly states (in verses I've already listed) that there is indeed an oral tradition,(prove it- no it doesnt unless you are bound by the law I.E. jewish) and St. Peter even attests how difficult Paul's letters are to understand.(vers please)

Finally, since I have a back-log of posts here. I didn't see anything blasphemous about Gza's statement. What exactly did you find problematic?

in dark green

[GZA]

Jesus Christ specifially founded a Church and gave it the autority to teach his followers and specifially vouched for it's teachings "whatever you bind on earth wil be bound in heaven"
(that vers refers to crown you earn on earth... do you know what the crowns are and how to earn them? you should cause that is what you will through at Jesus' feet after you are judged... hint their are seven of them)

Where does this verse say anything about a crown???? Please don’t “twist the scriptures to your own destruction”.
"the pillar and foundation of the truth"
(again men are sinners, their for can not be full of truth except from faith in God, do you believe that only the pope can have faith?)
OHHHHH so if you sin you cant teach the word of God faithfully????????? You better throw out your bible then :P Because it was written by a bunch of sinners

[B], not to mention the fact that the bible specifally warns against trying to interpret the bible for yourself if you were given no authority to do so.[/B](give me verses)

I gave you verses below

There are some 35,000 different types of Protestant Christianity out there all proclaiming to truly know what the bible is saying and yet they all dissagree with each other. All the while they claim the task of understanding the bible is so easy and apparent but how come, at best, only one out of 35,000 of their denominations could have possibly gotten it all right?
(satan is strong)

Ohhhh and your particular denomination just so happens to be the one that got it right??? Based on what??? Your pastors study harder??? Are holier??? Well my Church leader has a promise from Jesus Himself that “the gates of hell will not prevail against” my church… yes satan is strong… that’s why Jesus decided to protect his church… not yours… but the Catholic Church… the ONLY Christian church in existence at the time Jesus made this promise. And now that you admit that tons of these denominations are in error I thought it was you who was saying that denominations mean nothing?????????? But now you are admitting that your denomination might be the difference between following God and following Satan.

A Catholic would choose to follow the Churches authority when it comes to understanding and interpreting the bible, because apparently it can't be that obvious and easy when there's so many differing arguing opinions among Protestants as it relates to what the bible really says, to put it another way here's what the bible has to say about it:

2 Peter 3:16-17
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
RSV
wow, you bible is soooo offff !!! is it even christian???
UHH yeah… I have about 20 different types… that particular version is the Revised Standard Version a PROTESTANT translation!!!! If you want to claim Protestants aren’t Christian then I guess you’d be attacking yourself seeing as though YOU are the Protestant here :P
1 peter 3:16 - "having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accues you good conversation in christ." meaninig - you bible in not even close!!! you man not be able to keep people from attacking you, but you can at least stop supplyin them with ammunition!!! you are sounding like mickey mouse taught you the bible... sorry if that is mean... sorry. as long as you do what is right(pray, read the bible, bible study - go to a good church) accusation will be empty adn will only ebmarrass them (not your self).
OHHHH I’m SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO embarrassed… perhaps it’s Mickey Mouse who forgot to teach you about the fact that you are quoting the WRONG BOOK!!!! Haha!!!! That was FIRST peter you quoted… but I clearly quoted SECOND peter!!!! In your “magical King James” version it reads as follows:
2 Peter 3:16-17
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
KJV
I guess it’s you who embarrassed yourself there huh???????? :P


2 Peter 1:19-20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.
RSV
did i do something in reguarding to prophecy??? or were we talking about bibles and churches... why did you quote that vers?
Although, yes, specifically this verse relates to prophecies in Scripture, the point is that obviously these Prophetic verses were written down… but NOT for just anyone to pick up to interepret… this relates to Just scripture general as I illustrated in SECOND peter :P AND, specifically, prophecies of scripture as is illustrated here. Besides, entire books of the bible are Prophetic in language, such as many of the writings of the Prophets (I guess that’s why they are called prophets huh :P)
send me your address(kidding dont do that)so i can send you a real bible... im tired of retyping the correct verses - well, i shouldnt be this has been a very good bible study for me... (lol i guess if you read this you to !!!)
You think I don’t have a King James Version of the bible???? I most absolutely do.. I’m just logical and rational as it relates to what a translation is. NO translations are perfect renderings of what is written in a completely different language, sorry to inform you. So I’m open to using most translations of the bible, and if there is a discrepancy, we can call on the Hebrew/Greek to sort things out, In fact I’ve been using PROTESTANT versions of the bible pretty much exclusively in making my points.correct vrs
2 peter 1:19 "we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereonto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in ta dark place, untill the day dawn, and the day star arise inn you harts:" you vers is not even close to that!!!
Umm…. Did you see the little 20 before my verse…you only quoted verse 19 :P… it goes like this in your “magical King James”
2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
KJV
so what that says is : - ) see christ is the day sat, and when he returns(rapture), he will shine in his full glory. untill that day we have SCRIPTURE as a lamp, adn the wholy spriti to illuminate scripture for us(not man) and guide us as we seek the truth, or as we seek Jesus. for more on Christ as the day star ... see ... luke 1:78, ephesians 5:14, revelation 2:28 and 22:16 - in gen as well what was it that led moses day and night?

vrs 20 same book
Bla bla bla… that wasn’t the verse I was referring to
"knowing this first (not -First of all you must understand this), that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretatin.(not -hat no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.)." see the difference? the changes are subtle like the devil - like he was to eve in the garden subtlely tricking her to eat... eat the wrong fruit - i think you are eating the wrong fruit... (actually i know it)
Ok… here goes :P the word in question
According to Strongs Concordance:
idios (id'-ee-os); of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, i.e. ONE’S OWN; by implication, private or separate
and according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (definitions)
idios--
pertaining to oneself, ONE’S OWN, belonging to oneself
I have no problem rendering it “ONE’S OWN” or “Private” because both terms attempt to grasp what idios means. When I read the King James Version the meaning doesn’t change to me… what are you saying??? That prophecies of scripture CAN be of “one’s own” interpretation but not of one’s “private” interpretation???? How does that even make sense???? The meaning is basically one and the same. Sorry to burst your bubble. You do realize that the Pope knows ancient Greek and Hebrew right???? The Catholic Church doesn’t have to rely on English translations of the bible in order to define it’s doctrines. In fact some of the most Prominent experts in New testament Greek on earth are Catholic. Not to mention the fact that if you went to Greece you’d find that only six one thousandths of one percent of the population is Protestant while more than 97 percent of the population is either Eastern Orthodox or Catholic (both religions happen to agree on about 99 percent of everything. Mary, the Eucharist, Priests Bishops, Confessions, Apostolic authority, You name it. That’s because the Eastern Orthodox church split away from the Catholic, not primarily for Doctrinal reasons, but mainly because they didn’t like some guy in the west ruling over people in the east so it was more of a political move. Not one I agree with, but my point is, why among people who can actually read and understand the New Testament as their native tounge are practically NONE Protestant?????? To top it off, pretty much 100 percent of the Christians who lived in Greece, Jerusalem, you name it, pretty much practically every Christian on earth (save for a few brief heretical movements here and there which no longer exist) was CATHOLIC before about 1,000 A.D. Who knows how to interpret Ancient Greek better than an ancient Greek??????? So why were they all Catholic???? Sort of makes you sound funny for trying to uphold your precious King James version as so enlightening. Is the King James superior to the oldest and most ancient Greek manuscripts known to man??? Because that’s what us Catholics were reading. Heck, that’s what we were reading AND writing for that matter.
So in other words, you can choose to crown yourself your own personal pope
(no i dont want to go to hell
Are you claiming all popes go to hell??? The Apostle Peter went to hell, according to which bible???? Actually, Pope Clement (our fourth Pope by most accounts) is specifically spoken of in the bible as going to heaven
Phil 4:2-3
3 And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
RSV
and decide for yourself what the bible says. But a Catholic would choose to listen to the man Jesus Christ specifically vouches for when it comes to correctly teaching the Word of God
(show me this in the bible... cause if you refering to an apostle i would love to meet him!!!! and dont say the pope - he is just a man - unless you can show me some doctrine?).
Since you grant that Peter the Apostle was given this power by Jesus Christ then all I have to do is illustrate that this power gets passed down through the ages right? Sounds pretty easy to me… remember the verse about the elders laying their hands upon timothy in order to ordain him??? The elders were passing down their power… here’s more verses to illustrate…
Matt 23:1-3
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
RSV
Note that at the time of the new testament Moses has been dead for how long??? And yet Jesus is telling us that the scribes and Pharisees teach on the seat “cathedra” of Moses!!!! Jesus affirms that Moses’ authority had been passed down through the ages, why not the authority of Peter??? Pay attention to these verses, they are parallel…
Isaiah: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open
Mattew: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV
Here Jesus is making a clear parallel reference to the verse in Isaiah… now let’s read what’s written before hand to get the context….
Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV
Here the context is obvious (we’ve dealt with this verse many times) now what does the parallel verse have to say that might shed some light on this verse???? First of all (I hope I don’t go over your head with this) Jesus was “King of the Jews” of the Davidic line… just as the power of the King is passed down as an office the power of queen mother is passed down (such as the verse in revelation speaking of the mother of Jesus as having a crown in heaven). In case you didn’t know, The queen of a kingdom as far as Jews were concerned was NOT the wife because, simply put, at times the Jewish king was allowed to have many wives. The King of the Jews’s mother was queen Just as Catholics regard Mary as queen. To top it off the king had sort of a prime minister who spoke for the king when the king wasn’t around. This verse relates specifically to this office:
Isa 22:19-22
I will thrust you from your OFFICE, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your AUTHORITY to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open
RSV
So you see here… just as the Kings power gets passed down (and did all the way down from David to Jesus), Jesus uses this parallel verse to illustrate that Peter’s position is the same position Eli'akim had in this verse in Isaiah. Eli'akim, just like Peter, spoke for the king of the Jews when the King was not around. Isiaiah CLEARLY states that this position is an OFFICE that gets passed down (as is occurring in this verse) and the same would go for Peter’s position. To top it off, Eli'akim is called “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the house of Judah” in the same way our Pope is “father to Jesus’ Kingdom” (actually the word Pope comes from the Latin word for father :P
Our Pope. That's why we put tradition on equal footing with Scripture
(prove that in the bible. tradition of man = scripture)
UMM… weren’t you reading… I listed a good five or so verses, I didn’t say “tradition of man” though I said “tradition”. The tradition I’m speaking of came from Jesus and the Apostles and is “of God”
, because Jesus Christ himself says BOTH are inerrant
(where?)
2 Thess 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter
RSV
And a myriad of other quotes...Pay attention… these have already been quoted in the past.
However, I never read in the bible that he vouches for your particular interpretation of scripture (or mine for that matter), so to play it safe, I'll stick with the teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church, the church Jesus Christ calls his own. ("build MY church") Isn't Jesus God? Isn't God perfect? So who are you to tell him that he made a mistake in choosing Catholicism as his own church?
(he didnt - you or the pope is adding that in there...)
The verse is in the bible…
Matt 16:18
you are Peter, and on this rock I will build MY church
RSV
And which Church was built upon Peter??? Find that Church and you’ll find Jesus’ Church… Good thing we have a TON of historical data showing that Only the Catholic Church can even come close to claiming Peter for themselves, Heck, your Church didn’t even exist at the time! Not for a good 1,500 years later (at least!!!).
I say all these things respectfully, because I have noted that you seem pretty set against the beliefs of the Catholic Church
yes and no - i believe some people can get saved and go to heaven and be in the catholic church - but, as you have shown the doctrine is more pagan (tradition) than christian).

If you still have a problem with tradition then you have a problem with the Word of God which CLEARLY STATES that we are to follow the traditions we were taught by the Apostles. So is the bible pagan?????
It made me wonder if anyone has ever bothered you to inform you as to the imense amount of evidence that you are up against if you claim you can attack it. To attack a teaching of The Church is to attack the teachings of the Pope
(yes it is and that is why with the bible i can crush it...easily... men will fail you (men = pope, pope is a sinner and needs salvation)),
So has Paul failed you and Moses???? Throw out your bible then because they are sinners who need salvation
to attack a teaching of the Pope is to attack a teaching of Jesus Christ himself.
(not even close - i will prove this tomorrow - gladly - hope you have time to check verses tomorrow cause im going to show you personally how to read the bible and God will inspire you hart(if it is not hardend) to see the truth... i will pray for both of us...)
So far, you haven’t shown me anything. I am familiar with every verse you’ve mentioned and considered them all BEFORE deciding to become Catholic. It’s nice that you believe you are the one who’s so well informed.
Luke 6:42
how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.
RSV
Both of us have our shortcomings, and none of us are perfect. So analyze yourself and consider where you may be going wrong also. As it relates to technicalities, I guarantee you’ll have trouble finding any weaknesses in my arguments. But I’m far from being your ideal Christian. Perhaps you will make it to heaven and I won’t, I do not claim to be superior or this and that in the eyes of God. But I do have an inkling that perhaps I’m better versed on this subject than you are, but that means nothing in terms of my or your salvation. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and forget about this topic, you clearly aren't paying attention to what I've written and I've clearly already heard everything you are going to say to me and have dealt with it in the past to the point that I'm convinced there is simply no evidence you can come up with that I can't deal with. So let's just drop this, Just don't attack the Catholic Church, because Derek wasn't attaking your church. I must have read about five questions attacking Dereks Catholic Beliefs specifically before I jumped into the conversation. Maybe we should just return this to a simple "ask a Christian" forum because these technicalities are lost on most people reading this. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. So let's not ruin it for everyone else.

[amcon]

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV

lets go king james not some other thing that is just a part of the bible(dont make me pull off tons of proof that what ever bible you use is not the right one- lets quote the real verse - then i will tell you the biblical meaning not what you were told by a man...)

mat 16:18 - 19
"and i say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church; adn the gates of hell shal not prevail against it.","and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: adn whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

the rock upon which jesus would build his church has been identified as: (1) Jesus him self(his work of salvation by dying for us ont he cross);(2) peter(teh first great leader in the chruch at jerusalem!!!!!!!!!); (the confession of faith that peter gave and that all subsequent true believers would give, the rock refers to peter as the leader of the chruch, his function not his personality, function of faith not works... just a peter had revealed the true identiey of Christ, so Jesus is revealing peter identity and role. LATER PETER REMINDES CHRISTIANS THAT THEY ARE THE CHURCH BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WITH (FOCUS HERE!!!) JESUS CHRIST AS THE CORNER STONE OF THE CHURCH(NOT THE POPE!!! WANNA VERS TO BACK THAT UP? OK - 1 PETER 2:4-6, all believers are joined into this chruch by faith(not works) faith in Jesus Christ as our go between to God (Jesus is God - wanna vers for that too?) the same faith that is expressed here ephesians 2:20 and 21... about the pope he is a sinner and need salvation just like the rest of us... no disrespect)



Here Jesus is building his church and giving it the authority to teach in his name, he's not sitting around passing out bibles. As a side note, this guy Peter, whom Jesus builds his church upon... history tells us he was the first leader of the Universal Church in Rome... a Church was built upon his tomb, and today that Church (tomb included) can be found in a little known place called The Vatican. Our Pope today, he is the 265th leader of the Universal Church in Rome, directly descended from Peter(please prove this with any thing in or out of the bible... that could be the craziest thing i have ever heard!!! so the polish pope was to0?) (in case you didn't know, the word Catholic comes from the greek Katholikos, meaning universal). Don't believe me about Peter being the first Pope or Jesus himself founding the Catholic Church? Just read your encyclopedia, history book, or what have you... It's a historically accepted fact:(what? who reports history? man? never rely on man only Christ... you can read that in your bible)

[D7M]

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV

lets go king james not some other thing that is just a part of the bible(dont make me pull off tons of proof that what ever bible you use is not the right one- lets quote the real verse - then i will tell you the biblical meaning not what you were told by a man...)

So the king James version was produced in what year? 1611? And there were no other scriptures in existence until then? For me, and this was part of my becoming Catholic, it was simply a historical issue. There was a universally accepted biblical cannon until the Protestant reformation. Amcon, have you ever read the "apocrypha"? Martin Luther adamantly deleted books of the Bible because they contained clear references to catholic doctrines. (for instance, II Macabees 12, clearly indicates the belief in purgatory).

So, to me, I found it horrible that the leader of a world religion would simply destroy a previously existing tradition because he (personally) didn't agree with it. Unfortunately, this has been indicative of the short history of Protestantism. If there is something you don't like, or don't agree with, remove it.

mat 16:18 - 19
"and i say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church; adn the gates of hell shal not prevail against it.","and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: adn whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

the rock upon which jesus would build his church has been identified as: (1) Jesus him self(his work of salvation by dying for us ont he cross);(2) peter(teh first great leader in the chruch at jerusalem!!!!!!!!!); (the confession of faith that peter gave and that all subsequent true believers would give, the rock refers to peter as the leader of the chruch, his function not his personality, function of faith not works... just a peter had revealed the true identiey of Christ, so Jesus is revealing peter identity and role. LATER PETER REMINDES CHRISTIANS THAT THEY ARE THE CHURCH BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WITH (FOCUS HERE!!!) JESUS CHRIST AS THE CORNER STONE OF THE CHURCH(NOT THE POPE!!! WANNA VERS TO BACK THAT UP? OK - 1 PETER 2:4-6, all believers are joined into this chruch by faith(not works) faith in Jesus Christ as our go between to God (Jesus is God - wanna vers for that too?) the same faith that is expressed here ephesians 2:20 and 21... about the pope he is a sinner and need salvation just like the rest of us... no disrespect)

Right. So here is one verse out of context.What do you make of the pastoral epistles? where there is a clear hierarchy described of bishops, priests, and deacons? Does your church have these offices? If not, then you are not in a biblical church.


Of course the Pope is a sinner and needs salvation like the rest of us. Again, it's difficult to criticize something you are not familiar with. Catholics never claim the pope is perfect.

Here Jesus is building his church and giving it the authority to teach in his name, he's not sitting around passing out bibles. As a side note, this guy Peter, whom Jesus builds his church upon... history tells us he was the first leader of the Universal Church in Rome... a Church was built upon his tomb, and today that Church (tomb included) can be found in a little known place called The Vatican. Our Pope today, he is the 265th leader of the Universal Church in Rome, directly descended from Peter(please prove this with any thing in or out of the bible... that could be the craziest thing i have ever heard!!! so the polish pope was to0?) (in case you didn't know, the word Catholic comes from the greek Katholikos, meaning universal). Don't believe me about Peter being the first Pope or Jesus himself founding the Catholic Church? Just read your encyclopedia, history book, or what have you... It's a historically accepted fact:(what? who reports history? man? never rely on man only Christ... you can read that in your bible)

But the Bible isn't a history book. That's like trying to use the bible as a science book, too. It's narrow to view the bible as containing *everything*. It only contains everything necessary for faith and morals, but not history. Gza is right. This is just historical fact.

[BuffedGuy]

Amcon, I accidentally threw away my 3-d glasses, so I can't read all the florescent colors! Aghhh!

[amcon]

Amcon, I accidentally threw away my 3-d glasses, so I can't read all the florescent colors! Aghhh!

i like green... it is my fav color... would you prefer yellow?

[D7M]

i like green... it is my fav color... would you prefer yellow?

no, just keep black, I can't read it either.

[amcon]

no, just keep black, I can't read it either.

if you have trouble reading it use three d glasses... kidding - sorry about that, if you highlight it with you mouse and curser it will be eaiser to read

[amcon]

St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)

what is that crap??? sorry i will just prove you wrong...

with all due respect you now have completly discredited your self (as well as in my last post are not a person to be talking about scripture) you are very wrong...(my appoligies if i have missed something - please provide scripture) (mods please i am not flaming: just pointing out huge false truths )

"john 1: 42 - and he brought him to Jesus. and when jesus beheld him, he said "thou art simon the son of jona: thou shalt be called cephas, which is by interpertation, a stone."

[amcon]

http://www.pacinst.com/antichri.htm (--- answer to this, i will post more about this later...

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock," (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)


"ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ...the Roman church owes its existence to the life of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD" (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)

"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

"Jesus Christ has founded one only Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope," (The Early Church © 1945)

you get the idea...

[amcon]

this one should be fun :

the real vers:

1 tim 3: 15 - "but if i terry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth."

not of the pope, or of the just the church - it "is the church of the living God" not a denomination.

to be a chruch leader is a heavy responsiblity because church bleongs to the living God(not the pope). church leaders should not be elected because they are popular, nor shoudl they be allowed to push their way to the top. instead the should be chosen by the church becaus of their respect for truth(the word of God, not tradition - unless it is in the bible and you are jewish) both in doctrine and in their personal lives!!!

the lis of qualifaications for the chruch office show that living a blameless and pure life requries effort and self-discipline. all belivers, even if they never plan to be church leaders should strive to follow these guidelines because the are consistent with what God says is true and right. the strength to do so comes from what? a priest ? a pope? a confession? NO!!! from Christ and the Grace he allots us.

What does the bible consider the pillar and foundation of the truth? The bible? or the church? answer ^^^^^ Christ!!!

[amcon]

and that, my friend, is why a Catholic would disagree with you on your opinion about not needing to follow any Church and just reading your bible on your own and figuring out what it means based on your own opnions.(the holy spirit reveals the scriptures to us... under your system a man does... all men are sinners and as filthy as rags(and those are some filthy rags)) Jesus Christ specifially founded a Church and gave it the autority to teach his followers and specifially vouched for it's teachings "whatever you bind on earth wil be bound in heaven"(that vers refers to crown you earn on earth... do you know what the crowns are and how to earn them? you should cause that is what you will through at Jesus' feet after you are judged... hint their are seven of them) "the pillar and foundation of the truth"(again men are sinners, their for can not be full of truth except from faith in God, do you believe that only the pope can have faith?), not to mention the fact that the bible specifally warns against trying to interpret the bible for yourself if you were given no authority to do so.(give me verses) There are some 35,000 different types of Protestant Christianity out there all proclaiming to truly know what the bible is saying and yet they all dissagree with each other. All the while they claim the task of understanding the bible is so easy and apparent but how come, at best, only one out of 35,000 of their denominations could have possibly gotten it all right?(satan is strong) A Catholic would choose to follow the Churches authority when it comes to understanding and interpreting the bible, because apparently it can't be that obvious and easy when there's so many differing arguing opinions among Protestants as it relates to what the bible really says, to put it another way here's what the bible has to say about it:

2 Peter 3:16-17
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
RSV

wow, you bible is soooo offff !!! is it even christian???

1 peter 3:16 - "having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accues you good conversation in christ." meaninig - you bible in not even close!!! you man not be able to keep people from attacking you, but you can at least stop supplyin them with ammunition!!! you are sounding like mickey mouse taught you the bible... sorry if that is mean... sorry. as long as you do what is right(pray, read the bible, bible study - go to a good church) accusation will be empty adn will only ebmarrass them (not your self).

2 Peter 1:19-20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.
RSV

did i do something in reguarding to prophecy??? or were we talking about bibles and churches... why did you quote that vers?

send me your address(kidding dont do that)so i can send you a real bible... im tired of retyping the correct verses - well, i shouldnt be this has been a very good bible study for me... (lol i guess if you read this you to !!!)
correct vrs
2 peter 1:19 "we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereonto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in ta dark place, untill the day dawn, and the day star arise inn you harts:" you vers is not even close to that!!!

so what that says is : - ) see christ is the day sat, and when he returns(rapture), he will shine in his full glory. untill that day we have SCRIPTURE as a lamp, adn the wholy spriti to illuminate scripture for us(not man) and guide us as we seek the truth, or as we seek Jesus. for more on Christ as the day star ... see ... luke 1:78, ephesians 5:14, revelation 2:28 and 22:16 - in gen as well what was it that led moses day and night?

vrs 20 same book "knowing this first (not -First of all you must understand this), that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretatin.(not -hat no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.)." see the difference? the changes are subtle like the devil - like he was to eve in the garden subtlely tricking her to eat... eat the wrong fruit - i think you are eating the wrong fruit... (actually i know it)

[D7M]

and that, my friend, is why a Catholic would disagree with you on your opinion about not needing to follow any Church and just reading your bible on your own and figuring out what it means based on your own opnions.(the holy spirit reveals the scriptures to us... under your system a man does... all men are sinners and as filthy as rags(and those are some filthy rags))

Under the Catholic system, a man does not. Again, if you don't know about it, research, then critique. It is God, through the Holy Spirit, who communicates the truth to the church. We would never listen to a mere man. But we will listen to the authority of the Holy Spirit. This is why, as Gza says, not only are there so many Protestant denominations, but also, historically, there were so many early heresies.

Jesus Christ specifially founded a Church and gave it the autority to teach his followers and specifially vouched for it's teachings "whatever you bind on earth wil be bound in heaven"(that vers refers to crown you earn on earth... do you know what the crowns are and how to earn them? you should cause that is what you will through at Jesus' feet after you are judged... hint their are seven of them)

I don't see how this refers to the crown of life referred to in Revelations. How is the authority of binding and loosing on earth given to the apostles equated with a future reward to be received in heaven? What is the hermeneutical principle at work here?


"the pillar and foundation of the truth"(again men are sinners, their for can not be full of truth except from faith in God, do you believe that only the pope can have faith?), not to mention the fact that the bible specifally warns against trying to interpret the bible for yourself if you were given no authority to do so.(give me verses) There are some 35,000 different types of Protestant Christianity out there all proclaiming to truly know what the bible is saying and yet they all dissagree with each other. All the while they claim the task of understanding the bible is so easy and apparent but how come, at best, only one out of 35,000 of their denominations could have possibly gotten it all right?(satan is strong)

"satan is strong"?? That doesn't answer Gza's excellent objection. I'd like a real answer. If there is only one truth, which denomination is it? They can't all be right?

A Catholic would choose to follow the Churches authority when it comes to understanding and interpreting the bible, because apparently it can't be that obvious and easy when there's so many differing arguing opinions among Protestants as it relates to what the bible really says, to put it another way here's what the bible has to say about it:

2 Peter 3:16-17
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
RSV

wow, you bible is soooo offff !!! is it even christian???

1 peter 3:16 - "having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accues you good conversation in christ." meaninig - you bible in not even close!!! you man not be able to keep people from attacking you, but you can at least stop supplyin them with ammunition!!! you are sounding like mickey mouse taught you the bible... sorry if that is mean... sorry. as long as you do what is right(pray, read the bible, bible study - go to a good church) accusation will be empty adn will only ebmarrass them (not your self).

You read the wrong verse, Amcon. Read the correct reference, II Peter 3;16, and then respond.

2 Peter 1:19-20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.
RSV

did i do something in reguarding to prophecy??? or were we talking about bibles and churches... why did you quote that vers?

send me your address(kidding dont do that)so i can send you a real bible... im tired of retyping the correct verses - well, i shouldnt be this has been a very good bible study for me... (lol i guess if you read this you to !!!)
correct vrs
2 peter 1:19 "we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereonto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in ta dark place, untill the day dawn, and the day star arise inn you harts:" you vers is not even close to that!!!

so what that says is : - ) see christ is the day sat, and when he returns(rapture), he will shine in his full glory. untill that day we have SCRIPTURE as a lamp, adn the wholy spriti to illuminate scripture for us(not man) and guide us as we seek the truth, or as we seek Jesus. for more on Christ as the day star ... see ... luke 1:78, ephesians 5:14, revelation 2:28 and 22:16 - in gen as well what was it that led moses day and night?

vrs 20 same book "knowing this first (not -First of all you must understand this), that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretatin.(not -hat no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.)." see the difference? the changes are subtle like the devil - like he was to eve in the garden subtlely tricking her to eat... eat the wrong fruit - i think you are eating the wrong fruit... (actually i know it)

This last part still doesn't get the heart of the issue. If scripture is understood by private interpretation, why are there so many different conflicting interpretations?