(06-20-2021 11:33 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Rev 22:18-19
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."

So, I ask again, show me in the Bible itself, where are the divinely specified table of contents? There exists none in the Bible itself. So who has the authrotiy to specifiy the Bible's contenets? The inly ones who have that Godly authority are those whom Christ himself gave that authority...the leaders of his own aporstolic church and their designated successors. Why? Because Christ gave them the authority to decide on earth, and said God bakcd up their decisions. So why do you add something not in the Bible to the Bible? Revelation says not to. Re-read the Gospel of John. It is quite clear.

And where in teh bioble does it say that only the Bible (which, remember did not exist in the form we know it today until several centuries after the death of Christ) does the doctirne and words "solo scriptura" specify? It does not. So that is something that someone added latrer. King James did not luve until the middle ages, yet many ascribe his version as the one bible? Where in the heck is the verse that specifies King james of England? It does not...that is aded, and it itslef is a non-biblical idea. Is the King James a good translation? For the most part yes. Is it the sole authority? No, not according to its own words contained in its own language. It is self-refuting, yet people ahve for centuries been bludgeoned into reapeating the mantra, much like the communistst repeat: We are at war with eastasia; we have always been at war with eastasia." It does not make it any more true. yet every King James version contains the qords of Christ, which many of its followers ignore: "This IS my body, This IS my blood." "You are the rock, and upon this rock I build my church. Whosoever's sins you deem to forgive here on earth, they are forgiven in heaven." Et cetera, et cetera.

People are certainly free to use their own will to follow something or someone else; as for me and my family, we follow God, and therefore, His Designated Church on this Earth.

(06-21-2021 12:44 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Priests take vows and wear rings, showing their betrothal to the church, which is their bride. They are fully aware that this is what they are doing. They understand they cannot be married to more than one. It makes logical sense in the context of marriage as described in the bible by Jesus and the apostles. I understand some do not agree with this idea, but that does not make it valid or any less scriptural.

The fact that its not scriptural makes it not scriptural. The idea that a priest is engaging in polygamy by taking a wife is not even remotely suggested anywhere in the Bible, and in fact the NT says over and over again that they should be married with a family in most cases.

The NT teaches that ALL born again believers are the bride of Christ, which means that ANYONE who takes a wife is a polygamist in this insanely nutty view. Scripture in no way draws any distinction in the marriage of a priest or any other believer, in fact scripture teaches that ALL believers are priests in God's eyes no matter if they hold an official earthly office or not.

This entire premise is beyond ridiculous and nothing of the sort is suggested on any level in the Bible.

Its a perfect example of placing a man made doctrine and tradition over the Word of God, whcih Jesus Himself specifically teaches against.

(06-21-2021 12:55 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So, I ask again, show me in the Bible itself, where are the divinely specified table of contents? There exists none in the Bible itself. So who has the authrotiy to specifiy the Bible's contenets? The inly ones who have that Godly authority are those whom Christ himself gave that authority...the leaders of his own aporstolic church and their designated successors. Why? Because Christ gave them the authority to decide on earth, and said God bakcd up their decisions. So why do you add something not in the Bible to the Bible? Revelation says not to. Re-read the Gospel of John. It is quite clear.

And where in teh bioble does it say that only the Bible (which, remember did not exist in the form we know it today until several centuries after the death of Christ) does the doctirne and words "solo scriptura" specify? It does not. So that is something that someone added latrer. King James did not luve until the middle ages, yet many ascribe his version as the one bible? Where in the heck is the verse that specifies King james of England? It does not...that is aded, and it itslef is a non-biblical idea. Is the King James a good translation? For the most part yes. Is it the sole authority? No, not according to its own words contained in its own language. It is self-refuting, yet people ahve for centuries been bludgeoned into reapeating the mantra, much like the communistst repeat: We are at war with eastasia; we have always been at war with eastasia." It does not make it any more true. yet every King James version contains the qords of Christ, which many of its followers ignore: "This IS my body, This IS my blood." "You are the rock, and upon this rock I build my church. Whosoever's sins you deem to forgive here on earth, they are forgiven in heaven." Et cetera, et cetera.

People are certainly free to use their own will to follow something or someone else; as for me and my family, we follow God, and therefore, His Designated Church on this Earth.

My man the first century of the church had most of the modern Bible. They had the entire OT and had copies of Pauls letters and the Gospels circulating throughout the Christian world. The claim that we did not have the Bible until King James is just patently false and totally denies early church history.

We have some 180 thousand letters of the early church fathers in the first 3 centuries of the church and you can recreate the entire NT just from them quoting it in their letters. I don't think you are trying to be dishonest, I think you just blindly accepted what you were taught and never actually bothered to fact check any of it or study early church writings and history. Thus you are just totally unaware of theses documented FACTS.

This is not a debatable issue, its well documented in the early church. Its no different then when people claim the books of the NT were not decided upon until the 4th century and the Nicean councils. Its a total lie, mostly told out of ignorance of the early church history and early church writings.

We don't think or suppose, WE KNOW FOR A FACT that we believe in the same 27 books the early chruch fathers believed to be divine scripture. All we have to do is examine what they wrote, we can fully confirm this 2 centuries BEFORE the Nicean councils. The councils came about because so many false books and gospels began to crop up in the 3rd century that it became necessary to draw a clear distinction between the accepted canon from the early church and the false books that were exploding on the scene.

Not only do we KNOW we have the same books as the early church, we KNOW we have the same words because we have so many early copies and quotes from those same church fathers.

Don't blindly take my word for it either, study the early church writings for yourself and confirm these things for yourself like I did.

Or just open your Bible and READ IT, you will find multiple places in the NT where the Apostles tell the early Christians to always read and teach the scriptures in the churches, and how they have questions for Paul about the scriptures. How are they telling Gentile Christians to read the scriptures in church if none exists? We even have verses where Paul quotes the Gospels as scripture, and Peter testifies that Pauls letters are Holy scripture telling all believers to accept them as such.

YES, they had NT scriptures in the first generation of the church age and taught them in the churches, as well as the entire OT scriptures.

If you don't know this then:

1- you are not read most of the NT
2- you have not read or studied early church history

(06-21-2021 12:55 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  And where in teh bioble does it say that only the Bible (which, remember did not exist in the form we know it today until several centuries after the death of Christ) does the doctirne and words "solo scriptura" specify? It does not.

See this is the problem with hard core denominationalism whether it be catholic or protestant.

You quote 1 or 2 verses that do not say what you claim, but you say "well it did not say it but THIS is what it really meant". Though it does not say that at all.

Then you take a dozen other verse that actually DO say some thing quite clearly, but you say "well they say this but they don't really mean what they say because of blah, blah blah." And you end up with a doctrine that is never said anywhere in scripture and at the same time deny a doctrine that is plainly stated multiple times in multiple books.

Both Catholics and Protestants have this problem when they are more attached to their denominational teachings than the actual word of God.

The Bible specifically teaches us not to blindly accept the teachings of any church or preacher, but to search the scriptures daily to see if those things were true. Paul was an actual Apostle, and the Bereans did not even take His word at face value, they searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul was saying was true.

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11


The Bible says specifically these men were wise and noble because the fact checked Pauls words with the Bible, which they AND the Bible itself recognized as the final authority of doctrine, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE SEARCHING IT TO FACT CHECK PAULS WORDS. Even Pauls teachings were subject to the Word of God for verification. They were not to be just blindly accepted. Of course this scripture is also a massive problem for anyone arguing they did not have the scripture to do theses things in those days.

Owl, our disagreement on this is not because of the words of the text, (the words of the Bible plainly state it is the final authority on doctrine in multiple verses, multiple chapters and multiple books), the problem is you reject the words of the text for the sake of your traditions and doctrines of men.

You openly admit that the traditions and doctrines of men have authority over the scripture. Yet Jesus Himself rebuked this WORD FOR WORD in an incredibly specific manner, He taught the Word of God has full authority over the traditions and doctrines of men.

Mark 7:

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men....

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”



There is no way you can truthfully get around this. It cannot be stated more plainly than this, this is as black and white as it gets. If you can't accept Jesus' words here, then there are no words would would ever accept on this in any situation. There is no way it can be worded and there is no context it can be explained from that will ever matter to you on it. You have chosen you traditions and doctrines of men over the Word of God.

Paul warned NEVER to go beyond scripture, but that is exactly what you argue, that the men in your denomination and church have final authority over even scripture. And that approach not only defies Jesus and the entire Bible, it leaves you at the mercy of flawed men, who can be corrupted and lead people astray with false doctrines, particularity when they name themselves the final authority and there is no standard of reproof and correction above them.

(06-21-2021 12:44 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The idea that only perfect human beings (of which there was only Christ and his Mother)

Your post even went so far as to suggest Mary was equal to Jesus, that she was sinless and perfect and on the level of a deity alongside Jesus.

TOTALLY ABSURD and TOTALLY BLASPHEMOUS.

Mary was NOT a perfect sinless being and no such thing is written anywhere in the Bible, and she most certainty is NOT a deity as Christ is.

(06-19-2021 06:42 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  These bishops might have a moral leg to stand upon had they attacked the pedophiles within their own ranks with such zeal. This is a political move led by politically motivated bishops within the Church and its going to drive countless Catholics out of it. Are Catholics going to judge other Catholics by political party and cast judgement on who can receive communion?

Lets revisit this asinine statement in a couple of years.

(06-20-2021 07:25 AM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 07:19 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Oh nooooooo, if he can't take the Eucharist, he ain't going to heaven. Tsk tsk.

LOL, according to the church anyway. That's what kept the royalty in the olden times in line.

I'm 65 and born catholic and attended catholic schools. Never heard the nonsense in your first sentence. Never.

Same here, I was taught that regardless of the severity of your sins if you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, even on your death bed, that the kingdom of heaven would be opened to you.

(06-19-2021 10:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 10:28 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I wonder if the pedophie priests still get to take communion? I have zero issue with what they are doing to Biden, just maybe take care of your own house first.

Agree.

This shows a true ignorance of Biblical teachings on forgiveness.

Jesus said many times that God will forgive us for any sins that we are truly sorry for.

Anyone who is not in a state of grace should not receive Communion. So if you've committed ANY mortal sin, you should abstain from Communion.

However, the Sacrament of Reconciliation can forgive you for any sin. Any sin at all. This puts you back in a state of grace with God.

The Church does not presume who has committed sins in most cases. It leaves that between you and God. So if you've murdered someone and want Communion, the Church will assume that you have sought and received forgiveness from God.

The reason the Church is taking action against Biden is that his very public pro-abortion stance is ongoing. An important part of Reconciliation is the real desire to not sin again. Biden's public stance would have to be reversed in order for him to complete the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

(06-21-2021 04:21 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Owl, our disagreement on this is not because of the words of the text, (the words of the Bible plainly state it is the final authority on doctrine in multiple verses, multiple chapters and multiple books), the problem is you reject the words of the text for the sake of your traditions and doctrines of men.

You openly admit that the traditions and doctrines of men have authority over the scripture. Yes Jesus Himself rebuked this WORD FOR WORD in an incredibly specific manner, He taught the Word of God has full authority over the traditions and doctrines of men.

Mark 7:

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men....

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”



There is no way you can truthfully get around this. It cannot be stated more plainly than this, this is as black and white as it gets. If you can't accept Jesus' words here, then there are no words would would ever accept on this in any situation. There is no way it can be worded and there is no context it can be explained from that will ever matter to you on it. You have chosen you traditions and doctrines of men over the Word of God.

Paul warned NEVER to go beyond scripture, but that is exactly what you argue, that the men in your denomination and church have final authority over even scripture. And that approach not only defies Jesus and the entire Bible, it leaves you at the mercy of flawed men, who can be corrupted and lead people astray with false doctrines, particularity when they name themselves the final authority and there is no standard of reproof and correction above them.

This. Owl initially correctly responded to my question of why Priests were not married by answering inheritance. That was spot on. It was a decision by the Catholic Church to keep all the wealth. Period.

Owl by all accounts is a man of God and is just being misled. He is trying to substantiate the idea as being Biblical or in accordance with the will of God which clearly it is not. It is one of reasons the Vatican is decorated in Gold. Wealth is seen as power in the secular world but not in God's world.

(06-21-2021 11:42 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  This. Owl initially correctly responded to my question of why Priests were not married by answering inheritance. That was spot on. It was a decision by the Catholic Church to keep all the wealth. Period.

Owl by all accounts is a man of God and is just being misled. He is trying to substantiate the idea as being Biblical or in accordance with the will of God which clearly it is not. It is one of reasons the Vatican is decorated in Gold. Wealth is seen as power in the secular world but not in God's world.

I fully agree. I believe Owl has the best of intentions, he is just placing the doctrines and traditions of men over the Word of God.

We should not blindly follow denominations because that is what ends up happening for both Catholics and Protestants.

We have to be willing to test the things our denominations teach to see if they are in accordance with the Bible, because it makes clear it is the Eternal Word of God and final authority on doctrine.

Without the Word you have no way to test the teachings and doctrine we hear, you end up blindly following the doctrine of men just because they claim they are the final authority. There is no scripture in the Bible that teaches men or any succession of men have the final authority over God's Word. The RCC makes this claim, but its is NOT stated in the text. They point to the passage of Peter being the rock the church is built on, but they go WAYYYY beyond the text and add in this giant doctrine that men are now the final authority over God's Word. Not only is it not written in that passage it greatly contradicts the entire NT on this issue.

This issue was at the core of the protestant reformation. The RCC kept the Bible locked away and hidden for several centuries in the middle ages, but when it began to get out again in the 16th century many who read the scriptures realized the Catholic Church was grossly contradicting the Bible on this and several other issues and had usurped the Bible as God's Word for their own traditions and man made doctrines. And as you stated, a lot of it was about power and money. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the papacy gave itself absolute power on earth, even over the Word of God.