Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
You mean the Pope?
In the Bible that is within my heart it would be Jesus. See the difference?
Well.....why don't you show me where it appears in scripture....and we'll see what it says.
I believe that JC is God and that I member of the Church of which is his kingdom.
It isn't someone specifically. It's the tradition of the Church that is supposed to guide the bishops and priests. I mean, you don't need someone to tell you what the Bible says concerning many things, but with certain ambigious or easy to misinterpret verses, I sure do my trust in the teaching authority, either through the clergy, or through researching the sources the Church relies on. The whole "Holy Spirit guides the individual Christian to interpret Scripture" viewpoint is just relativism, given a nice face.
Yeah you do. You've seen my posts enough and have conversed enough with me to know that I believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I just don't believe He's a set of NT books because He was also spoken of in the OT.
So 2 Pet 1:20 means what to you?
It always comes down to that, doesn't it? The arrogance of believing in the perfection of their own personal interpretation of scripture.
That the primacy of Peter is recognizable in all the major strands of the New Testament is incontestable.
= = =
Uhhhhhhhhhh, No.
Perhaps something like that sort of case MIGHT be made for Peter's FAITH.
Not all that nice, I might suggest.
My point does not assume the truth of relativism. My point is that claiming to rely on Scripture alone does not guarantee that your interpretation is the true one. There are 20,000+ Protestant sects that claim to rely on Scripture alone and have the true interpretation "as revealed by the Holy Spirit". What makes you think that you are somehow immune to the interpretational errors that plague the other 20,000+ Protestant sects?
I'm not saying that nobody has the truth. (That's why my point does not assume relativism.) I'm talking about how you can know that *you* have the truth, and that all the other 20,000+ Protestant are wrong? So my question is about epistemic justification, and not pluralism or relativism.
-A8
How about God saying in Genesis "Let US make man in OUR image?" How about :"And there are THREE who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these THREE are ONE."
Amen brother. As if their's is somehow more enlightened or profound than the ones that have been delivering the message for over 2,000 years now.
"This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise."
Hey, if the anti-Catholic prots want to attack the faith to which I subscribe, the least they could do is share the position from which they attack it.
Anyone who's unwilling to do that is simply a coward.
Do you worship this book? Was this book crucified?
Please try to clarify what you mean when you say things like "Christ is the NT" and "That book is Jesus". If you don't worship the NT, and yet you claim to worship Christ, then you have a serious contradiction on your hands.
-A8
It is impossible for them to "share a position." Ever since Luther first denounced the Pope they have been arguing amongst themselves -- the only thing they can agree on is that Catholicism is wrong.
If Ignatius actually said this, which he probably didn't, Heresies can be traced to Ignatius...
And the devil tells a thousand lies.
That's why for 2,000 years the church has written various creeds -- to hold men's perception of God accountable to the word of God itself.
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." -- Isaiah 8:20
Impossible...Paul was in charge of the church at Rome...In fact, Paul was in charge of all the churches...
2Co 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
If there was a pope, it had to be Paul...And the 2nd pope would likely have been Timothy...
You claim Peter went to Rome when there is no biblical evidence of it...Peter was the apostle to the JEWS...The Jews were kicked out of Rome...There's no reason for Peter to be there...
And if Linus was 2nd in command under Peter, his commissions was to the Jews as well...Certainly not the Gentiles...
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.