Oh no! Sole authority is your invention. No where in the bible does it say the bible is sole authority. You are deceived
Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You take nothing unless its a valid consecration which i doubt takes place at your meeting room
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
no where in the bible does it say the word trinity, it does not mean it is not true.
God did not spend 2000 year giving us his word, only to leave it unfinished, and incomplete.
Sola scriptura is your invention. yor church made the term up. because its doctrines fall on its face unless they do as the jews did in the OT and use outside sources. and the words of men outside of scripture.
If your doctrine stood the test of God. you would not need anything outside the word of God. And thanks, you just proved what said, the bible means nothing to you.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [SUP]17 [/SUP]that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The bible says itself it is completely able to make every man of God complete. and thoroughly able to do EVERY WORK.
it says of itself nothing else is needed. You deny this, you reject the authority of the word itself.
You do realize the bible is a Catholic book given to you by Catholics 382 AD at the Council of Rome? To pretend, as you do, that it goes against Church teaching is hillarious
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
No the bible was Gods book, given to me in the 1st century.
Just another propoganda tactic by your church to try to convince you they are right.
You said catholic base on tradition and bible, how about if tradition not inline with bible, do you choose tradition and ignore bible?
Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
The Catholic Church has been here 1,982 yrs. I think it stands the test. This verse, Tim 3:16, does it say the bible is the sole authority? It doesn't does it?
I don't respond to your posts because you have accused me of being a pagan. So quit addressing meYou said catholic base on tradition and bible, how about if tradition not inline with bible, do you choose tradition and ignore bible?
Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
C
CeileDe
Guest
1 John 2:27
But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
R
rakovsky
Guest
Hello, Valiant,
You are right when you say the following, and it is in this sense that terms like Theotokos and God's "mother" are correct:
One of your main objections was that Mary did not conceive Jesus and only bore Him. However, Isaiah prophesied of Jesus:
King James Bible
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Is. 7:14)
So in the sense of conceiving Jesus in the flesh, Mary was the "mother" of that physical process, and one need not draw any extra, incorrect inferences about that term that neither I nor you agree with.
I think you are making a good point that the Church fathers who chose the creeds and the books of the Bible preferred the term Theotokos and it gives a good picture that Mary was God's mother in the physical birth process. But the Church fathers also used the term Theometor* - literally God's mother, and that term does not necessarily mean anything different than Theotokos does. All that is required is the clarification of the term "God's mother" reflecting the relationship between the Virgin Mary and Jesus that you and I see.
*(Source: Etymology and Usage: Theotokos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, "found in patristic and liturgical texts")
The fact that a term could be misunderstood does not mean a term is incorrect. Non-Christians could easily misunderstand what we mean by our terms (eg. "lamb of God") and draw incorrect inferences from them, and it's merely a matter of clearing up what we mean.
You are right when you say the following, and it is in this sense that terms like Theotokos and God's "mother" are correct:
One need not draw any further, incorrect inferences from this, like Mary creating Jesus' soul before she was born or something. I am confident that you and I are on the same page in terms of substance. This is only an issue of terminology. I am sure that Catholic doctrine has tons of problems, however simply calling her God's "mother" is not a problem, since a mother is simply someone who gives birth. And Mary gave birth to Jesus, who was God.
One of your main objections was that Mary did not conceive Jesus and only bore Him. However, Isaiah prophesied of Jesus:
King James Bible
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Is. 7:14)
So in the sense of conceiving Jesus in the flesh, Mary was the "mother" of that physical process, and one need not draw any extra, incorrect inferences about that term that neither I nor you agree with.
I think you are making a good point that the Church fathers who chose the creeds and the books of the Bible preferred the term Theotokos and it gives a good picture that Mary was God's mother in the physical birth process. But the Church fathers also used the term Theometor* - literally God's mother, and that term does not necessarily mean anything different than Theotokos does. All that is required is the clarification of the term "God's mother" reflecting the relationship between the Virgin Mary and Jesus that you and I see.
*(Source: Etymology and Usage: Theotokos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, "found in patristic and liturgical texts")
The fact that a term could be misunderstood does not mean a term is incorrect. Non-Christians could easily misunderstand what we mean by our terms (eg. "lamb of God") and draw incorrect inferences from them, and it's merely a matter of clearing up what we mean.
I ask you question if tradition like in the picture oppose the bible which you choose?
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
I am not racist at all so don't make false assumptions about me, as I love all people, but the bible clearly says we being of the works of light are not to mingle with the works of darkness.
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
There are many scriptures in the bible that point to the Muslim countries as those that follow the man of sin; Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Greece, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, and Jordan. These countries are all Muslim or have big to mostly Muslim populations and are shown in OT end times prophecy to follow the man of sin and face God's judgment.
So how am I being weird when I am going by God's word, as His word says that if a person denies the Son they do not have the Father. And Muslims deny Jesus as the Messiah therefore they can not worship the same God as us, but Pope Francis believes they do and has asked multiple times to hold worship together. Therefore this would be having the works of light fellowshipping with the works of darkness.
James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.
Lord Jesus Himself says that the Holy Spirit that comes into all born again believers will lead them in all truth. So to say a person has no authority to translate scripture, and that only a Catholic priest or pope can is false teaching.
All believers in Jesus Christ are lead in truth of the word by the Holy Spirit !!!
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.
Lord Jesus Himself says that the Holy Spirit that comes into all born again believers will lead them in all truth. So to say a person has no authority to translate scripture, and that only a Catholic priest or pope can is false teaching.
All believers in Jesus Christ are lead in truth of the word by the Holy Spirit !!!
Nowhere in the Bible doe it say the church is our permanent authority, nowhere in the Bible is there any suggestion that the Roman church was pre-eminent, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the successors of the Apostles.
On the other hand the whole of Psalm 119 says that the word of God is to be our light, our guide, our teacher, and the basis of what we believe.
2 Tim 3.15-17 reveals the same. What is able to make us wise unto salvation? The Scriptures. What is able to guide, exhort and teach us? The Scriptures. What is able to bring us to perfection? The Scriptures.
Jesus and the Apostles made the Scriptures their authority. Jesus Himself rejected tradition in favour of the Scriptures. Mark 7.8, 9, 13.
You haven't a leg to stand on.
The term God's mother is blasphemous and totally misleading. God has no mother.
The verb in Isaiah 7.14 simply means 'be with child' See Matt 1.23
Last edited:
It certainly does not take place in your church founded on murderers and adulterers.
You will keep reiterating these lies. The Bible is not a Catholic book even in the wider sense of the term . It is certainly not a Roman book. The Old Testament scriptures were confirmed to us by Jesus, what had Rome to do with that? The New Testament Scriptures were given to us by the Apostles and confirmed by THEM as Scripture. What had Rome to do with that?
All the books of the New Testament were widespread among the churches in 2nd century AD and confirmed as authoritative by Clement, Ignatius and Irenaeus among others.
The Council of Rome did not confirm the New Testament. You make assumptions that are not true.
To suggest that the heretical, secessionist Roman Catholic church, which distorted the teachings of the Apostles, (and of the early Roman church) and was founded in 8th century AD, had anything to do with the Scriptures is what is hilarious. The Scriptures condemn it on every hand.
Originally Posted by valiantwouldn't it be wonderful if you actually thought about what it meant for yourself
Thank you for your admission that those are Scriptural truths discerned by all but you and your secessionist church.
It will certainly make us miss the unscriptural, secessionist, heretical church of Rome