Kay 17:
Also the Church is "inspired" to provide the correct rules of interpretation of the Bible. It draws the context and degree in which words and sentences in the Bible are to be read. An example is the Commandment "thou shall not kill" a literal reading suggests an absolute BAn on killing, even non humans, which God himself violates.

I like the way you put it.

italo:

You have talked about many instances where you THINK the Catholic Church is engaging in practices that are not in the Bible and contrary to Bible teachings.

No Catholic teaching or practice is contrary to Bible teaching - though you obviously disagree. However there are Catholic doctrines and practices that are not explicitly stated in the Bible... And there is nothing wrong in that. The Bible is not the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine. Even the Bible derives its authority from the authority of the Church that produced it. If the Catholic Church had no authority to create, compile and canonize the Bible, we wouldn't accept it as such. There is only one doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ and the responsibility rests on the Church to interprete the Bible and teach us that doctrine. It is because you people feel that anyone can interprete the Bible any way you please that we now have millions of people teaching millions of different doctrines and claiming they are all from the ONE Holy Spirit.

Then again, God's word wasn't passed down to us ONLY by Sacred Scripture. It is also passed down by Sacred Tradition. That is why St. Paul said "brothers, hold fast to the TRADITION we have handed to you, either by written letter (books of the Bible) or by WORD OF MOUTH." So the Church recognizes God's word in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Even the Bible, which you take as the final authority came from Church Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture were the Apostles or anyone else instructed to create or compile the Bible. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere is anyone told to regard the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine, so to say that something is wrong because its not in the Bible is unbiblical. Rather, the Bible says "the Church (not the Bible) is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth. It is because we believe all these that we accept and believe when the Catholic Church told us that the book of Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there is nothing in those books that suggests that those were the authors and they were inspired by the Holy Spirit so how do you know that?

I can go on to show - one by one - that in all the instances you raised, the Catholic Church is NOT going contrary to the Bible if you want me to start after reading all that I just said.

To say that the bible derived its authority from the church that compiled it, is wrong. By that, you're saying that the bible is subject to the church. The word of God can never be subject to anybody or group.
Another thing is, no matter the means the God's word is passed, it can never contradict a former word. We can go on, the bible our final authority.

^^^^ And he is wrong about the absence of the Bible in 40 AD, anyway.

True, we did not then yet have the New Testament but we did have what is still called the Hebrew Bible, certainly the Old Testament including even the Greek translation called The Septuagint.

Of course you could give an expanded meaning to the word "church" to include people of the Old Testament era or to go as far back as Abram/Abraham (or even further if you like) . . . . . . .

italo:
Even the Bible derives its authority from the authority of the Church that produced it. If the Catholic Church had no authority to create, compile and canonize the Bible, we wouldn't accept it as such.

Reyginus: To say that the bible derived its authority from the church that compiled it, is wrong. By that, you're saying that the bible is subject to the church. The word of God can never be subject to anybody or group.

I want to believe he meant the compilation/collection of texts and not the text itself (that was my interpretation). I think what he is saying is that the collection of texts is subject to the church. The question i want to ask is this; who determines which texts to include in the bible? if the church determines what text to include and what to leave out, then i don't buy the idea of 'bible alone'.

italo:
There is only one doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ and the responsibility rests on the Church to interprete the Bible and teach us that doctrine. It is because you people feel that anyone can interprete the Bible any way you please that we now have millions of people teaching millions of different doctrines and claiming they are all from the ONE Holy Spirit.

The idea of the church leadership doing the interpretation makes a lot of sense but i am afraid it will not hold. I do agree there has to be some form of leadership to provide a direction (imagine millions of sheep running in different direction without a shepherd). what you are asking is that we leave our brains locked up in a vault when it comes to matters concerning interpretation of the bible (let the church do the interpretation). This could have been achieved if we never had access to the bible. Now that we can read, there is going to be questions.

italo:
Then again, God's word wasn't passed down to us ONLY by Sacred Scripture. It is also passed down by Sacred Tradition. That is why St. Paul said "brothers, hold fast to the TRADITION we have handed to you, either by written letter (books of the Bible) or by WORD OF MOUTH." So the Church recognizes God's word in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Even the Bible, which you take as the final authority came from Church Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture were the Apostles or anyone else instructed to create or compile the Bible. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere is anyone told to regard the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine, so to say that something is wrong because its not in the Bible is unbiblical.

Like

Enigma: ^^^^ And he is wrong about the absence of the Bible in 40 AD, anyway.

True, we did not then yet have the New Testament but we did have what is still called the Hebrew Bible, certainly the Old Testament including even the Greek translation called The Septuagint.

Of course you could give an expanded meaning to the word "church" to include people of the Old Testament era or to go as far back as Abram/Abraham (or even further if you like) . . . . . . .

The Hebrew Bible isn't the Bible.

Kay 17:
The Hebrew Bible isn't the Bible.

Why you dey answer that trickster?

Reyginus: To say that the bible derived its authority from the church that compiled it, is wrong. By that, you're saying that the bible is subject to the church. The word of God can never be subject to anybody or group.
Another thing is, no matter the means the God's word is passed, it can never contradict a former word. We can go on, the bible our final authority.

until u understand that this people are blind,u wont stop bothering urself about thier dear souls. they dont understand that christianity is. recieve the word go home read and meditate in the word. be filled with the holyspirit. they dont knw what salvation means. And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth Acts 17 vs 11. i bet thev neva come across this b4. no word of God in them. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_church_is_a_big_hoax.htm. GOd rebuked worshiping the queen of host clearly in the bible.sorry av fogoten the book nd chatper it cn be found in the bible go nd search for it urselvz if u hav a bible. do i hear u mention queen of host in your prayers. why have you decided to hold on to self destruction. truly d 1st shal be d laST. Op mentioned things clearly if u dnt see truth in what he said,someone has ur eyes and mind not u

THE WORST PART IS THAT THEY SEE OTHERS AS BLIND BUT THEY ARE FATALLY BLIND.....GOD FORBID THE STRATEGIES OF SATAN.HAV THEM RECITE DOZ JAGON FROM CHILDHOOD UNTIL IT BECOMES A STRONG HOLD....IT ONLY TAKES GRACE FOR ONE OF SUCH TO BE DELIVERED

Mftivi:
until u understand that this people are blind,u wont stop bothering urself about thier dear souls. they dont understand that christianity is. recieve the word go home read and meditate in the word. be filled with the holyspirit. they dont knw what salvation means. And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth Acts 17 vs 11. i bet thev neva come across this b4. no word of God in them. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_church_is_a_big_hoax.htm. GOd rebuked worshiping the queen of host clearly in the bible.sorry av fogoten the book nd chatper it cn be found in the bible go nd search for it urselvz if u hav a bible. do i hear u mention queen of host in your prayers. why have you decided to hold on to self destruction. truly d 1st shal be d laST. Op mentioned things clearly if u dnt see truth in what he said,someone has ur eyes and mind not u

lol.... frm queen of heaven to queen of host....

Reyginus: To say that the bible derived its authority from the church that compiled it, is wrong. By that, you're saying that the bible is subject to the church. The word of God can never be subject to anybody or group.
Another thing is, no matter the means the God's word is passed, it can never contradict a former word. We can go on, the bible our final authority.

You seem to be forgetting that the Church is not just a any group but the household of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to 1Tim 3:15.

How do we know that the Bible is the word of God? Is it Jesus that told us or the Church? If it was Jesus, can you provide the verse where Jesus mentioned the word Bible?

When Peter and Paul had a dispute, where did they turn to as final authority? Was it the Bible or the Church? If it was the Bible, provide the verse that says so.

^^ loool!

Good point. Once we can establish that The Church is the primary axiom of christianity, Pentecostal Churches can declare the Bible to be a foundational guide subject to the Church's interpretational rules and the Church itself.

Zikkyy:
The idea of the church leadership doing the interpretation makes a lot of sense but i am afraid it will not hold. I do agree there has to be some form of leadership to provide a direction (imagine millions of sheep running in different direction without a shepherd). what you are asking is that we leave our brains locked up in a vault when it comes to matters concerning interpretation of the bible (let the church do the interpretation). This could have been achieved if we never had access to the bible. Now that we can read, there is going to be questions.

Even after the "protestant reformation" in the 16th century, it has continued to HOLD for billions of Catholics...and we have also been reading the Bible. Before then, the reformers made people believe that more independent access to the Bible would enlighten them about the "truth" and the Catholic Church said independent interpretation of the Bible outside of Church teaching would lead to Heresy and anarchy. Just look at Christendom today and tell me who was right. If the protetants were right, then how many "truths" do we have? How many doctrines and how many faiths?

No matter how literate, intelligent or educated one is, he/she can never be certain that his/her understand of Christ's doctrine is ablutely correct without alligning with the infallible teaching of the Church. Just look at the other side: millions of different and contradictory doctrines all claiming to be the true doctrine taught by ONE Holy Spirit...but there can only be ONE true doctrine... So how do you know you are right and every other person is wrong.

I think you should re-read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.

God said the wisdom of men is foolishness. u think the scripture is what u interprete carnaly,so foget all diz jagon udrop here,u can only understand when the spirit rests on u. u sound sooo empty. dont mean to upset anyone just teling u how u look

Mftivi: God said the wisdom of men is foolishness. u think the scripture is what u interprete carnaly,so foget all diz jagon udrop here,u can only understand when the spirit rests on u. u sound sooo empty. dont mean to upset anyone just teling u how u look

You'd be guilty of circular reasoning. Who told you that the Holy Spirit exists and that it helps you interpret the Bible correctly??

italo:
Even after the "protestant reformation" in the 16th century, it has continued to HOLD for billions of Catholics...and we have also been reading the Bible. Before then, the reformers made people believe that more independent access to the Bible would enlighten them about the "truth" and the Catholic Church said independent interpretation of the Bible outside of Church teaching would lead to Heresy and anarchy. Just look at Christendom today and tell me who was right. If the protestants were right, then how many "truths" do we have? How many doctrines and how many faiths?

I do not claim any right or wrong here. The fact that billions continues to submit to the 'infallible' teachings of the RCC does not mean others will not disagree. And where the church is unable to provide convincing justifications for some of its teachings, there will always be opposition.

italo:
No matter how literate, intelligent or educated one is, he/she can never be certain that his/her understand of Christ's doctrine is ablutely correct without alligning with the infallible teaching of the Church. Just look at the other side: millions of different and contradictory doctrines all claiming to be the true doctrine taught by ONE Holy Spirit...but there can only be ONE true doctrine... So how do you know you are right and every other person is wrong.

I think you should re-read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.

I do not claim to be infallible, neither do I claim that the protestants are infallible. I also do not believe that the RCC is infallible. And when we don't agree It's either;
The church is right and zikkyy is wrong or,
The church is wrong and zikkyy is right or,
We are both right or
We are wrong.

You want us to submit to the teachings of the church to ensure there is no confusion. What happens if the church is wrong?

Mftivi: God said the wisdom of men is foolishness. u think the scripture is what u interprete carnaly,so foget all diz jagon udrop here,u can only understand when the spirit rests on u. u sound sooo empty. dont mean to upset anyone just teling u how u look

......and you are of belief that you are the one the spirit rest on abi? the spirit is not resting on others just because they don't agree with you.

Kay 17:

The Hebrew Bible isn't the Bible.

What is "the Bible" then?

italo:

Why you dey answer that trickster?

It looks like you are just to be pitied now. Sorry oh, some of us make no apologies for exposing the fraud of the arguments of the Roman Catholic defenders about the origin of the Bible.

@enigma

The Bible is the merged message of both the old testament and the New testament, in that both are intended to give life to one another. The Hebrew Bible patently lacks the New testament, and suffers from being a single dimensional testament.

^^^

So, which of the following two is "the Bible"? (Bear in mind I can list quite more than just these two )

1. The Catholic Bible

2. The Protestant Bible

The one popularly known as the Catholic Bible.

^^^ So, the book being used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible", then?

Kay 17:

You'd be guilty of circular reasoning. Who told you that the Holy Spirit exists and that it helps you interpret the Bible correctly??

.
were u eva a christian. oh my GOD!please read the whole of romans chapter8

Zikkyy:

......and you are of belief that you are the one the spirit rest on abi? the spirit is not resting on others just because they don't agree with you.

just becos they dont agree with the word of God not me. i see confused people here. pipl talking out of thier empty box,if u wana serve GOD become a fool hubmle urself,dont bring in human jagon follow his word point to point. and live according to d leading of the spirit. many things u practice are contrary to wat God says yet u argue. whats ur point now. God aint wise enough,he made mistakes?

Zikkyy:
I do not claim any right or wrong here.

To be clear, I didn't really mean that you claim to be right. I was making a general statement...perhaps, I didn't put it properly.

Zikkyy: The fact that billions continues to submit to the 'infallible' teachings of the RCC does not mean others will not disagree.

Of course, that is to be expected...and it is not a new thing at all. When many submitted to the infallible teachings of Jesus, many disagreed. When many submitted to the infallible teachings of the apostles (the first priests and bishops), many disagreed. The New Testament is full of instances where the apostles were warning the children of God to resist false teachers and their doctrines which were already present at that time. So we are not perturbed by Protestantism of today.

Zikkyy: And where the church is unable to provide convincing justifications for some of its teachings, there will always be opposition.

For example: the same way some of his own disciples opposed and left him when they felt he hadn't provided "convincing justification" for his teaching that they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life...

Opposition took no credit from Christ - the head; opposition takes no credit from the Church - his body.

Zikkyy:
I do not claim to be infallible, neither do I claim that the protestants are infallible. I also do not believe that the RCC is infallible.

So you can never be sure that you are practising God's true faith and doctrine... Don't you shudder at the implication of that?

Zikkyy: And when we don't agree It's either;
The church is right and zikkyy is wrong or,
The church is wrong and zikkyy is right or,
We are both right or
We are wrong.

If, for example, you disagree with the Church teaching on purgatory, saying purgatory doesn't exist. You cannot be both right. Only one party can be saying the truth.

Zikkyy: You want us to submit to the teachings of the church to ensure there is no confusion. What happens if the church is wrong?

The only motivation for my saying all I'm saying is not for the eradication of confusion...but for your salvation and mine.

The Catholic Church says it cannot teach error because the Holy Spirit guides it to teach God's truth and prevents it from teaching error. So if the Catholic Church is wrong on even ONE teaching, it means that the above statement is a untrue. It means the Catholic Church could be wrong about any other issue, including: the canon of New Testament which you hold as scripture, its authenticity, authorship, source of inspiration of the books etc... And if all these can be called into question, then Christianity itself is questioned and we are all in danger of being doomed.

Also, talking about infallibility/fallibility...

The Protestant position against the infallibility of the Catholic Church is not tenable. Any Protestant who claims to be infallible is guilty of the very same thing he accuses the Catholic Church of. Any Protestant who claims to be fallible can never be sure of his/her position on any doctrinal matter so he/she cannot claim with certainty that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Mftivi:
just becos they dont agree with the word of God not me.

Its rare to see Christians disagree with the texts. disagreement is usually over human interpretations.

Mftivi:
i see confused people here. pipl talking out of thier empty box,if u wana serve GOD become a fool hubmle urself,dont bring in human jagon follow his word point to point. and live according to d leading of the spirit.

following the word 'point to point' requires interpretation. what's the assurance that your interpretation is correct and how do you know they are not living according to the leading of the spirit?

italo:
When many submitted to the infallible teachings of Jesus, many disagreed. When many submitted to the infallible teachings of the apostles (the first priests and bishops), many disagreed. The New Testament is full of instances where the apostles were warning the children of God to resist false teachers and their doctrines which were already present at that time. So we are not perturbed by Protestantism of today.

For example: the same way some of his own disciples opposed and left him when they felt he hadn't provided "convincing justification" for his teaching that they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life...

I don't think we should compare Church leadership of today to Christ (or even the apostles). Christ was talking about himself so how is it possible he will be wrong?

italo:
So you can never be sure that you are practising God's true faith and doctrine... Don't you shudder at the implication of that?

No, i don't. i try to make my practice as simple as possible without introducing unnecessary complexities.

italo:
If, for example, you disagree with the Church teaching on purgatory, saying purgatory doesn't exist. You cannot be both right. Only one party can be saying the truth.

I see this as one of those unnecessary complexities. what is my business with purgatory. My brother am interested in the final destination and not some imaginary bus-stop deduced from some ancient practices.

italo:
The only motivation for my saying all I'm saying is not for the eradication of confusion...but for your salvation and mine.

So you believe the concept of infallibility is for our salvation? lol my brother, the pope no just want too much argument and i have to admit that it worked sha. if not the church would have been smaller today.

italo:
The Catholic Church says it cannot teach error because the Holy Spirit guides it to teach God's truth and prevents it from teaching error. So if the Catholic Church is wrong on even ONE teaching, it means that the above statement is a untrue.

YES. That's my position. The Holy Spirit will guide only if you allows it to. Everybody says they are being guided by the spirit, and we have all sort of practices from Catholic - Anglican - petecostals - 'cele' - JW; who do i believe.

italo:
It means the Catholic Church could be wrong about any other issue, including: the canon of New Testament which you hold as scripture, its authenticity, authorship, source of inspiration of the books etc... And if all these can be called into question, then Christianity itself is questioned and we are all in danger of being doomed.

There is that possibility that the RCC could be wrong on other issue, that is not to say i don't agree with the church on a lot of issues. for e.g i am not likely to disagree with the church on practices that aligns with my interpretation of biblical texts or were practiced by the early church. Please be reminded that the NT texts was already in use by early Christians prior to compilation so no fear that the authenticity, authorship or source of inspiration of the books will be called into question. To be honest, what's the guarantee that some of these books were written by these authors? and what's the guarantee that some books were not left out? acceptance is not because the Church cannot make mistake.

italo:
Also, talking about infallibility/fallibility...

The Protestant position against the infallibility of the Catholic Church is not tenable. Any Protestant who claims to be infallible is guilty of the very same thing he accuses the Catholic Church of. Any Protestant who claims to be fallible can never be sure of his/her position on any doctrinal matter so he/she cannot claim with certainty that the Catholic Church is wrong.

I agree

Enigma: ^^^ So, the book being used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible", then?

But Apocrypha books are missing!