Religious Controversies: The Right Religion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

Well, no sense in further discussion with you as you are obviously not as open minded as you think.
as my final note, if you truly believe, as you say you do, that Jesus speaks exactly what He means, as you interpret it, or have had it interpreted for you, please explain to me Matthew 23:9 and your church calling your priests Father.

The Catholic church has created a division between laity and leader. That is never taught in the scriptures or even inferred on any level. All can come to the knowledge, all can come to understand.

Father. Let no man call anyone else Father. Yet you call someone, or many men Father on a regular basis. Placing them on a level above you. Some of the “Fathers” are merely children, young men in a robe. You have an earthly Father and a Holy Father. One brings you life on earth, the other life in Heaven. It has to do with terms that place one man above another. Don’t call anyone else teacher. Not as a term of office or lordship or above his brother.

Peter held no office. There is no valid reasoning for that whatsoever.

Bro Chris…it will be much more crowded in heaven than you think. I admire your zeal in defense of the Catholic faith. But JW defend their faith too. Blindly, as they are taught. You would like to show them their error and by doing that you have to get them to look at other issues, other documents, other teachings.

Over the centuries men have learned so much more about the wording and the use of the words in the Bible.
The standard commentaries of 100 years ago are good, but much more can be gleaned thru newer studies and
it never hurts to renew and review. Unless there is nothing left to learn.

Good luck to you as you travel thru this life.

122

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Yes I can, it is an approved version of the Bible. Therefore, I did, and therefore I will.[/quote]

lol - and there you have it . . . didn’t know the JW’s and RCC had so much in common . . .[/quote]
I fear I may have contributed to the creation of a monster right before my very eyes. Brother Chris here started out with a very empirical method of argumentation and then along the way made a couple comments about how he was beginning to favor my more presuppositional method (which isn’t mine). Now it appears all over these threads that he has attempted to adapt reformed epistemology to catholicism with the church standing in the place of God. =] Brother Chris, I doubt if you would phrase it that way, but take a look that how it’s playing out.[/quote]

It was only in jest that I made that comment (even though the Bible comes from the church and inspired by the Holy Ghost), I have one of those Bibles with the Latin-Approved English-Greek/Hebrew scriptures in them side by side. I just didn’t feel like pasting Greek in here and explaining what it means, when it still means what it means. I have studied that piece for a long time. [/quote]
Lemme just say that will never be sorry for the all of the non-“approved” books I have read.

123

[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
…as my final note, if you truly believe, as you say you do, that Jesus speaks exactly what He means, as you interpret it, or have had it interpreted for you, please explain to me Matthew 23:9 and your church calling your priests Father. Father. Let no man call anyone else Father. Yet you call someone, or many men Father on a regular basis. Placing them on a level above you. Some of the “Fathers” are merely children, young men in a robe. You have an earthly Father and a Holy Father. One brings you life on earth, the other life in Heaven. It has to do with terms that place one man above another. Don’t call anyone else teacher. Not as a term of office or lordship or above his brother.

[/quote]

Oh boy.

You just went against scripture if you attend to use Matthew 23:9 in such a way. You said we have a holy father and an EARTHLY father…

Might I remind you that Matthew 23:9 says, “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” So, your argument should include not being able to call your earthly father, father. But you just did.

124

All religions are man-made. None were ordained by their respective Deities. All religious text have been interpreted by men other than the Divine who first spake them. There’s a common thread between all religions and Deities. Each human should, in their hearts and minds, give praise to and live for the Creator. All humans will continue to make huge mistakes in their lives. Some innocently and others purposely. If we strive constantly to open our hearts and minds to what we know is right and good, all the time, then we are pleasing our Creator, who or whatever you choose to believe in. Period.

125

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Yeah, and you pretend like the Catholic Church does not do that with itself. Heck, our current Pope was called the bulldog of morals and faith. I am pretty sure a bulldog is good at guarding something precious.

So, G-d cannot give power to a priest to absolve sins?

I have not heard about the dioceses you speak of, link?[/quote]

I was just saying, and it is all people and institutions. A church I attended before going to college has had two pastors in a row commit adultery with their secretary. It is not just the Catholic Church. We all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

There is no where in the Bible that God gives the power to absolve sins to anyone. Can he do it yes, but that is a Power Reserved for God only.
[/quote]

Why We Have a Ministerial Priesthood: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp
Absolution: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Absolution

It is in the Bible, Jesus did say to his Apostles, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23)

I’ll read it later, when I get a better chance.

126

[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
Well, no sense in further discussion with you as you are obviously not as open minded as you think.
[/quote]

Oh because I choose to conform myself to Jesus, and not conform His Word to myself, by believing that I have some awesome insight into a document that is 1700 years old?

[quote]
as my final note, if you truly believe, as you say you do, that Jesus speaks exactly what He means, as you interpret it, or have had it interpreted for you, please explain to me Matthew 23:9 and your church calling your priests Father.

They did not call Priests back in the day Father. This is a non sequitor. And some commentary from 1609:

[9] “Call none your father upon earth”… Neither be ye called masters. The meaning is that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4. 23: 15,) and for our masters and teachers.

Where is your proof that knowledge is with held by the Catholic Church? Look at the Catechism, the Canon Lawyers, The Vatican website, the Auxiliary websites, the massive amounts of books detailing the faith. Sounds like the Catholic Church is an open book when it comes to the faith.

[quote]
Father. Let no man call anyone else Father. Yet you call someone, or many men Father on a regular basis. Placing them on a level above you. Some of the “Fathers” are merely children, young men in a robe. You have an earthly Father and a Holy Father. One brings you life on earth, the other life in Heaven. It has to do with terms that place one man above another. Don’t call anyone else teacher. Not as a term of office or lordship or above his brother.

Peter held no office. There is no valid reasoning for that whatsoever.

Bro Chris…it will be much more crowded in heaven than you think. I admire your zeal in defense of the Catholic faith. But JW defend their faith too. Blindly, as they are taught. You would like to show them their error and by doing that you have to get them to look at other issues, other documents, other teachings.

Over the centuries men have learned so much more about the wording and the use of the words in the Bible.
The standard commentaries of 100 years ago are good, but much more can be gleaned thru newer studies and
it never hurts to renew and review. Unless there is nothing left to learn.

Good luck to you as you travel thru this life.[/quote]

I tried to stay humble in my arguments, but you are too pretentious for me. Especially in your private interpretations. Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Then you will understand that using these commentaries that pop up every so often are dangerous.

I am sorry, we can not go further, but I do not try to make scripture fit my mind, I make my mind fit scripture. I know this saying is hard, and who can hear it? But, I tell you seek truth and know your Lord.

127

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Krishnamurti focuses on himself. In mind and beyond mind. Through that, he is able to know me, you, socialism, christianity, capitalism etc.

Awareness is my religion. Love and peace are my god.

He is def. worth a read… but many will read him through their own prism - through their own knowledge, assumptions, and expectations. Thus, they will not get much out of it and stop after 10 pages or so. You must go beyond your mind when you read him. Beyond the analysis. Stay in the present to understand it… to understand yourself. Then… through this understanding, ‘what is’ will transform itself naturally.

[/quote]

Krishnamurti was the best thing I ever read. There is not much we can say about this but he is probably the most sanest man ever.

128

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Yes I can, it is an approved version of the Bible. Therefore, I did, and therefore I will.[/quote]

lol - and there you have it . . . didn’t know the JW’s and RCC had so much in common . . .[/quote]
I fear I may have contributed to the creation of a monster right before my very eyes. Brother Chris here started out with a very empirical method of argumentation and then along the way made a couple comments about how he was beginning to favor my more presuppositional method (which isn’t mine). Now it appears all over these threads that he has attempted to adapt reformed epistemology to catholicism with the church standing in the place of God. =] Brother Chris, I doubt if you would phrase it that way, but take a look that how it’s playing out.[/quote]

It was only in jest that I made that comment (even though the Bible comes from the church and inspired by the Holy Ghost), I have one of those Bibles with the Latin-Approved English-Greek/Hebrew scriptures in them side by side. I just didn’t feel like pasting Greek in here and explaining what it means, when it still means what it means. I have studied that piece for a long time. [/quote]
Lemme just say that will never be sorry for the all of the non-“approved” books I have read.[/quote]

I have read many non-approved books, but I do not care for private interpretations. Because no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

129

[quote]oldewise1 wrote:
All religions are man-made. None were ordained by their respective Deities. All religious text have been interpreted by men other than the Divine who first spake them. There’s a common thread between all religions and Deities. Each human should, in their hearts and minds, give praise to and live for the Creator. All humans will continue to make huge mistakes in their lives. Some innocently and others purposely. If we strive constantly to open our hearts and minds to what we know is right and good, all the time, then we are pleasing our Creator, who or whatever you choose to believe in. Period. [/quote]

Why do we have to continue to make huge mistakes, why don’t we try to live perfectly?

130

Then maybe we do need to continue. Never been accused of being pretentious, I do not and never have studied to prove myself correct. A wise man once said “A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext”. I don’t share in that game as others might. Actually feel like I spend more time as a devils advocate to create thoughts in others that haven’t been brought out before. You appear to enjoy a challenge but have no bend or give or even idea of looking anywhere other than the Catholic library. If that is the case you will never know what is or could be on the other side of any point. Fine. But a pond that never refreshes its water becomes stagnant and dies.

I have a younger brother who has become a Catholic, mind you neither of us “grew up” in any church. He asked me what to look for in the classes he was to take, my answer…just make sure that whatever is taught can be backed by the Bible, and the Bible only, book, chapter and verse. His teacher told him that would not be possible. I would not be able to follow such a belief system. I even stretch at some of the teachings of my congregation…you haven’t heard of the churches of Christ, I assume. Simply put, a non-denominational christian church. Which can be an oxymoron.

I have no private interpretations of any scripture. My learnings have come from sitting at the feet of many good men, reading many good books, studying my Bible, using the available study tools and then coming to a conclusion that just makes good sense, based on all available factors. There are things I am sure I would like to see differently but I cannot, cause it’s just not there.

You ask why can’t we just live perfectly. Cause you sin thats why. Cause I sin. Cause we all sin.

No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Interesting comment. Do I assume that the proper study of the words used, the context used in and the intent made cannot be learned by an individual?
If so then we would be terribly lost and ignorant. Wouldn’t we? I have the tools available can I not therefore use them? and those tools are being improved upon every day.

“but I do not try to make scripture fit my mind, I make my mind fit scripture” Nor do I. No good student would.

131

So, I don’t know if this is the appropriate place, but I was hoping some of the folks here might help me out. This is probably going to sound like Christian bashing, but I hope it isn’t taken as such. I absolutely believe in god and I do try to live as Christ did.

I’m kind of a Jeffersonian Unitarian type. Not a true Christian by normal standards and here is why:

The old testament.

I have a huge philosophical problem with much of it. I don’t see most of it as universal Truth. I even believe some of it to be wrong. Not believing in the divine nature of the old testament I then reach an impass at Christ’s divinity. If the old testament isn’t absolute Truth, Jesus, who believed in it cannot be divine.

I have a lot of problems with the old law. Do yall actually believe killing animals in a specific way and sprinkling their blood in certain areas and putting blood on your right ear and burning organs and fat was the way to please god?

Do you believe in the justice of stoning people for working on the Sabbath or exiling people for minor offenses?

Do you believe in the justice of mass genocide of other people including women and children?

Do you believe that the rules concerning slavery were correct?

Do you think the mercy seat was truly a seat where you could literally talk to god?

If Christ hadn’t yet made his first visit, would you adhere to these rules and not eat pork? Or even better, if you’d lived as an Israeli back then, would you hold yourself to the law?

Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?

Do you believe the scape goat really took people’s sins with it?

Would you participate in stoning like the law says to?

God even admits several times that he does or is about to do something evil and then stops or is talked out of it.

Genesis 6:6,7 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him.”

Jonah 3:10 “. . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”

Exodus 32:14 “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”

How can an all powerful benign god regret something and contemplate doing evil?

I can’t bring myself to believe in the Truth of the old testament. I do think it was appropriate for the time and contains good advice, but I cannot accept it as divinely inspired.

I just find myself saying, that law is wrong, they shouldn’t do that to people when I read much of it. Further, by dismissing parts of the old testament, I feel I lose my ability to proclaim the divinity of Christ.

132

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?

[/quote]

I am about to leave for the weekend, but this one statement jumped out at me. I am going to take a lot of heat for this, but my wife and I really struggle with this one. Personally when she is menstrating I have a hard time having intercourse with her. Maybe because I find it a little grose, but that is just me. She has learned to accept it. She has been pregnant for the past 2 years, we have 2 sons 15 months apart, so this topic has not come up until recently.

A funny story I told a College room mate that having sex with a woman who is menstrating is frowned upon was in the Bible and he did not beleive me. When I showed him the scripture all he could say was well an orgasim helps with cramps so you should help your future wife out.

133

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?

[/quote]

I am about to leave for the weekend, but this one statement jumped out at me. I am going to take a lot of heat for this, but my wife and I really struggle with this one. Personally when she is menstrating I have a hard time having intercourse with her. Maybe because I find it a little grose, but that is just me. She has learned to accept it. She has been pregnant for the past 2 years, we have 2 sons 15 months apart, so this topic has not come up until recently.

A funny story I told a College room mate that having sex with a woman who is menstrating is frowned upon was in the Bible and he did not beleive me. When I showed him the scripture all he could say was well an orgasim helps with cramps so you should help your future wife out.

[/quote]

That was actually a pretty serious old testament offense. It got you cut off from your people.

So, would you stone and adulteress if you lived back then?

134

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, I don’t know if this is the appropriate place, but I was hoping some of the folks here might help me out. This is probably going to sound like Christian bashing, but I hope it isn’t taken as such. I absolutely believe in god and I do try to live as Christ did.

I’m kind of a Jeffersonian Unitarian type. Not a true Christian by normal standards and here is why:

The old testament.

I have a huge philosophical problem with much of it. I don’t see most of it as universal Truth. I even believe some of it to be wrong. Not believing in the divine nature of the old testament I then reach an impass at Christ’s divinity. If the old testament isn’t absolute Truth, Jesus, who believed in it cannot be divine.

I have a lot of problems with the old law. Do yall actually believe killing animals in a specific way and sprinkling their blood in certain areas and putting blood on your right ear and burning organs and fat was the way to please god?

Do you believe in the justice of stoning people for working on the Sabbath or exiling people for minor offenses?

Do you believe in the justice of mass genocide of other people including women and children?

Do you believe that the rules concerning slavery were correct?

Do you think the mercy seat was truly a seat where you could literally talk to god?

If Christ hadn’t yet made his first visit, would you adhere to these rules and not eat pork? Or even better, if you’d lived as an Israeli back then, would you hold yourself to the law?

Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?

Do you believe the scape goat really took people’s sins with it?

Would you participate in stoning like the law says to?

God even admits several times that he does or is about to do something evil and then stops or is talked out of it.

Genesis 6:6,7 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him.”

Jonah 3:10 “. . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”

Exodus 32:14 “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”

How can an all powerful benign god regret something and contemplate doing evil?

I can’t bring myself to believe in the Truth of the old testament. I do think it was appropriate for the time and contains good advice, but I cannot accept it as divinely inspired.

I just find myself saying, that law is wrong, they shouldn’t do that to people when I read much of it. Further, by dismissing parts of the old testament, I feel I lose my ability to proclaim the divinity of Christ.
[/quote]

I thought about it a little more. I guess my trip for the weekend can wait. This is how I look at the OT. All the different laws are there to show man that we can not do it on our own. We are all sinners, and there is no way that we can be righteous on our own. We need a savior. The OT points to Jesus and the final sacrifice that God has to do bring us back to him.

I like your point about the mercy seat or some call it the Holy of Holies. I beleive you could have talked to God there, but know that the priests that went in there had to have a rope tied around their waist just in case. Just in case when they got in there and they died because they had sin in their heart. God is holy and any sin no matter big or small in his presence will be destroyed. Once the tapestry was torn at the death of Jesus from top to bottom God opened himself to the entire world. We have the blood of Jesus for all eternity so that our sins are forgiven and we are made new.

I Love the Living God. He is not dead but alive.

135

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I thought about it a little more. I guess my trip for the weekend can wait. This is how I look at the OT. All the different laws are there to show man that we can not do it on our own. We are all sinners, and there is no way that we can be righteous on our own.
[/quote]

So the old testament isn’t literal or absolute, it’s just a metaphor? You don’t believe that the god given law was totally just/right?

You wouldn’t have stoned someone working on the Sabbath?

136

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?

[/quote]

I am about to leave for the weekend, but this one statement jumped out at me. I am going to take a lot of heat for this, but my wife and I really struggle with this one. Personally when she is menstrating I have a hard time having intercourse with her. Maybe because I find it a little grose, but that is just me. She has learned to accept it. She has been pregnant for the past 2 years, we have 2 sons 15 months apart, so this topic has not come up until recently.

A funny story I told a College room mate that having sex with a woman who is menstrating is frowned upon was in the Bible and he did not beleive me. When I showed him the scripture all he could say was well an orgasim helps with cramps so you should help your future wife out.

[/quote]

That was actually a pretty serious old testament offense. It got you cut off from your people.

So, would you stone and adulteress if you lived back then?[/quote]

It is hard to say, but I would include adulterors in this also. David was an adulteror, but God looked at the heart. If the person who committed adultery was repentant, and asked the Lord for forgiveness I would have given that person mercy, but If the person who committed adultery was unrepentent, and spit in the face of God that this was ok I might have joined in the stoning. It is about the heart. You sinned, but are you repentant. The Jews as it is said in the Bible many times were a people with stiff necks and hard hearts. Once their punishment was administered they repented and turned back to God. When they turned back to God he took his judgment hand off of them. Look at the town of Ninevah that was a people outside of the Law. God was going to judge Ninevah, and Jonah new that if he went there Ninaveh would repent and God would punish the Isrealites with them. When we repent God is faithful to bring us back into fellowship with him.

137

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I thought about it a little more. I guess my trip for the weekend can wait. This is how I look at the OT. All the different laws are there to show man that we can not do it on our own. We are all sinners, and there is no way that we can be righteous on our own.
[/quote]

So the old testament isn’t literal or absolute, it’s just a metaphor? You don’t believe that the god given law was totally just/right?

You wouldn’t have stoned someone working on the Sabbath?[/quote]

For the people at the time it was very literal. I still consider it literal. I think we should continue to uphold the laws that were written there, but the punishment for sin is death. We see that in the NT. Even though we are now under grace and not the law, and are repentant and are forgiven does not mean there are not consequenses for our sin. The law shows us how to live our lives. The Bible is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. It is very literal. The NT changes things. Jesus told us to forgive our transgressors. We are to forgive not so much for the transgressor, but for us. Hate turns into bitterness and it eats us alive.

I am not going to say that I understand why God did what he did, because my finite mind will never be able to understand his infinite self. I will continue to study and try to understand though. I will continue to seek the Lord.

138

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Would you treat a woman on her period as unclean (and anything she sits on)?

[/quote]

I am about to leave for the weekend, but this one statement jumped out at me. I am going to take a lot of heat for this, but my wife and I really struggle with this one. Personally when she is menstrating I have a hard time having intercourse with her. Maybe because I find it a little grose, but that is just me. She has learned to accept it. She has been pregnant for the past 2 years, we have 2 sons 15 months apart, so this topic has not come up until recently.

A funny story I told a College room mate that having sex with a woman who is menstrating is frowned upon was in the Bible and he did not beleive me. When I showed him the scripture all he could say was well an orgasim helps with cramps so you should help your future wife out.

[/quote]

That was actually a pretty serious old testament offense. It got you cut off from your people.

So, would you stone and adulteress if you lived back then?[/quote]

It is hard to say, but I would include adulterors in this also. David was an adulteror, but God looked at the heart. If the person who committed adultery was repentant, and asked the Lord for forgiveness I would have given that person mercy, but If the person who committed adultery was unrepentent, and spit in the face of God that this was ok I might have joined in the stoning. It is about the heart. You sinned, but are you repentant. The Jews as it is said in the Bible many times were a people with stiff necks and hard hearts. Once their punishment was administered they repented and turned back to God. When they turned back to God he took his judgment hand off of them. Look at the town of Ninevah that was a people outside of the Law. God was going to judge Ninevah, and Jonah new that if he went there Ninaveh would repent and God would punish the Isrealites with them. When we repent God is faithful to bring us back into fellowship with him.[/quote]

“I might have joined in the stoning” – really? wow. I can’t say that I would under any willing circumstance.

The law doesn’t really say that and I have a hard time seeing it in the OT. The only thing that is mentioned as giving you a lighter punishment is ignorance of the law.

“You shall surely put them to death” is used a lot more than I’m comfortable with.

I mean to me, the OT doesn’t even read as a monotheistic religion. It reads as “this is the most powerful god”. For example the Egyptian wizards turning their staffs to snake and blood to water est. (I also don’t feel that god hardening Pharaohs heart was just nor killing innocent first born children)

Can you say that, assuming the story of job was real, it was just?

139

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I thought about it a little more. I guess my trip for the weekend can wait. This is how I look at the OT. All the different laws are there to show man that we can not do it on our own. We are all sinners, and there is no way that we can be righteous on our own.
[/quote]

So the old testament isn’t literal or absolute, it’s just a metaphor? You don’t believe that the god given law was totally just/right?

You wouldn’t have stoned someone working on the Sabbath?[/quote]

For the people at the time it was very literal. I still consider it literal. I think we should continue to uphold the laws that were written there, but the punishment for sin is death. We see that in the NT. Even though we are now under grace and not the law, and are repentant and are forgiven does not mean there are not consequenses for our sin. The law shows us how to live our lives. The Bible is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. It is very literal. The NT changes things. Jesus told us to forgive our transgressors. We are to forgive not so much for the transgressor, but for us. Hate turns into bitterness and it eats us alive.

I am not going to say that I understand why God did what he did, because my finite mind will never be able to understand his infinite self. I will continue to study and try to understand though. I will continue to seek the Lord.[/quote]

So if Jesus still hadn’t visited, you would be for the execution of Levitical law today?

140

[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
Then maybe we do need to continue. Never been accused of being pretentious, I do not and never have studied to prove myself correct. A wise man once said “A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext”. I don’t share in that game as others might. Actually feel like I spend more time as a devils advocate to create thoughts in others that haven’t been brought out before. You appear to enjoy a challenge but have no bend or give or even idea of looking anywhere other than the Catholic library. If that is the case you will never know what is or could be on the other side of any point. Fine. But a pond that never refreshes its water becomes stagnant and dies.
[/quote]

I look in other’s libraries all the time (I am conveniently given books about what the Bible says all the time), but find that it is usually wrong. And I usually the reason why I am looking at something during Bible study is because I have heard the other point. Yes, but I live by the living water.

That is the difference between you and me, my religion gave the world the Bible. I do not assume, and it is not my tradition that everything needs to come from the Bible, even the Bible says nothing about only using the Bible, the Bible does not even have the word Bible in it. All the Bible is, is a library of different sacred scriptures inspired by the Holy Ghost. It is not the only thing we can use. And until you understand that Catholics do not subscribe to the Sola Scriptura doctrine, and we do not believe that you can only use the Bible you will do better in argument.

I went to a church of Christ church for some months.

[quote]
I have no private interpretations of any scripture. My learnings have come from sitting at the feet of many good men, reading many good books, studying my Bible, using the available study tools and then coming to a conclusion that just makes good sense, based on all available factors.[/quote]

That is still private interpretations. If they have no authority, how can they do anything but give private interpretations.

Then your mind is closed, not mine. My mind changes all the time, every time I asked the Holy Ghost to straighten my mind towards the truth.

What about the Parable of the young rich man? Are you saying if we lean on Jesus and be with Him that He cannot help us live a perfect life? Real biblical of you.

[quote]
No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Interesting comment. Do I assume that the proper study of the words used, the context used in and the intent made cannot be learned by an individual?
If so then we would be terribly lost and ignorant. Wouldn’t we? I have the tools available can I not therefore use them? and those tools are being improved upon every day. [/quote]

Who authorized those tools, if I may ask? Private individuals. And it is not a comment, it is scripture.

Of course, you merely choose which commentary that best interprets scripture to what you figure correct.