Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. (Matt. 10:40)
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 18:17,18)
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:1-20)
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Lk. 10:16)
It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell. (Acts 15: 28-29)
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. (Jn 13:20)
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. (Jn. 17:18)
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can people preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring [the] good news!” (Rom. 10:13-15)
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Cor. 11:2)
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Tim. 2:2)
Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you. (Titus 2:15)
Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you.… Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb. 13:7,17)
Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters. (1 Peter 5:5)
We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. (1 Jn. 4:6)
Perhaps your denominations does not but you personally, as many other Protestants, seem to do so. Or should I regard your postings as nothing more than your personal opinion which carries no weight in what I should believe?
Only authoritarian organizations do that.
And if that authority comes from God himself?
No, I read the Bible and see that God has established a visible church with the authority to teach and guarded from error by the Holy Spirit. To deny this is to deny Scripture.
As to your comment in “bad theology”, you possess absolutely no teaching authority, none, to Challenge the Catholic Church’s Catechism. You should try actually reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church to answer any of your objections. And please don’t tell me all you need is your Bible. If that were the case, thousands of different Protestant Churches would not be in conflict with each other. Jesus left a single Church with a single teaching authority and a single truth. We all need a a teaching authority to help guide us in interpreting scripture.
It is one thing to say that Catholics got it wrong when interpreting Scripture but another to say that we have not made the attempt. Do you truly believe that Catholics have not studied the Scriptures to understand what they teach? The use of Scripture by Catholics from the early Church to the present would belie such a statement.
Were those doctrines heard of in the early church?
Were they not established as doctrine in Vatican 1 and 2?
A common mistake. Church teachings do not originate with the declarations of church councils. These declarations--an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium--are only made to clarify what the Church has always believed and taught--the Ordinary Magisterium. You would not hold that the Catholic Church only condemned contraception since 1968 (Humanae Vitae) or taught that only men can be ordained to the priesthood since 1994 (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), would you? The infallibility of the popes and the Assumption of Mary were part of the ordinary day-to-day teaching of the Church long before the declarations of Vatican I & II.
Tradition is the day to day teaching of the Church handed down from the Apostles. Indeed, the acceptance of the canon of the Scriptures is part of that Tradition itself.
It's based on the shed blood of Jesus and His finished work on the cross.
Which is how you interpret the Bible.
Catholic interpretation of Scripture is not personal but an exercise of the authority given by Jesus Christ himself.
A good place to start would be the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
No, there is nothing to interpret. It is a phrase he spoke whenever he presented his doctrine, which was 100% from the scriptures.
Give your imagination a rest.
.
Explain?
Catholic doctrine is Pharisee doctrine: the power for men to change the word of God.
If you align with that you are simply lost!
This is what Paul denounced as the unbearable ordinances, as also Yeshua denounced in the “woes” he pronounced on the Pharisees and scribes.
This is Satan’s magic sword that he uses to convince the easily confused that they need not heed Torah.
This is basically the whole story on Matthew 7.
.
So you accept that when Jesus said "This is my body" and "This is my blood" that the bread and wine were changed into his Body and Blood?
Do you accept that when he said "Do this in remembrance of me" he empowered the Apostles to thus repeat this action and change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?
Do you accept that unless we eat his Body and drink his Blood we will have no life in us?
Do you accept that when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you hold bound are retained" he gave his apostles the power to forgive and retain sin?
Do you accept that all those who cry out Lord, Lord will not enter the kingdom of Heaven but those who do the will of the heavenly Father?
Do you accept that "Faith without works is dead"?
Do you accept that the Keys of the Kingdom were given to Peter and that what he loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven and what he held bound on earth is held bound in Heaven?
Do you accept that in addition to Baptism there is the reception of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by the apostles?
Do you accept that other men were installed into the office of the apostles after the death of the original twelve?
Do you accept that within the Church there is a hierarch of offices of episcopoi, presbuteroi and diaconoi that is imparted by the laying on of hands and who have received their authority from the original apostles?
Do you accept that when someone is sick we need call for the presbuteroi of the Church for the anointing with oil which can forgive sins?
This is what the Bible declares and these are all Catholic teachings.
You are the one “interpreting,” for sure! All that you offer is of whole cloth.
If you understand that the NT was 100% Hebrew, and that Hebrew cannot be translated to Greek without losing the cultural meaning of the discussion, then you can see the Torah/Tanach parallels, and the catholic nonsense just evaporates.
The Aramaic NT, which is a full generation older than the Greek, will help you with some of this. It’s unfortunate that so few have studied the NT from its Semitic roots.
No interpretation, just a listing of what the Bible says.
If you understand that the NT was 100% Hebrew, and that Hebrew cannot be translated to Greek without losing the cultural meaning of the discussion, then you can see the Torah/Tanach parallels, and the catholic nonsense just evaporates.
What utter nonsense! While there are indications that Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek. Paul was writing to Greek speaking Gentiles. Mark and Luke were not even Jews.
Paul was writing to Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Northern Israelites dispersed along the northern shore of the Mediterranean.
That is who Yeshua sent his disciples to, by his own words.
Paul had limited Greek fluency, as shown by the Centurian asking him (in Acts) “can you speak Greek?”
The NT was in Hebrew primarily and soon later in Aramaic, but probably a century before any sizable part was available in Greek. The Greeks were really not that interested.
Mark 3:16
One can believe in the eucharist, or they can believe in Yeshua, but one cannot believe in both; they are mutually exclusive in all respects.
There will not be so much as one soul that hasn’t repudiated the lie of the eucharist on the Sea of Glass mingled with Fire.
.
>> Yes, Scripture is the Word of God and has authority but in not one of your quotations is there mentioned “Scripture alone” <<
.
Every doctrine Yeshua presented in his life was quoted from the ancient scriptures.
.
Try a look at Strong’s!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.