The Church or The Bible

Typical, a Catholic priest “proving” things through his interpretation of the Bible and not realizing (or blatantly ignoring) how hypocritical he is being. Can’t wait to see how he “proved” that the Catholic church is right and the rest are wrong.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I grew up learning that listening to the Catholic Church is how you learn how to be Holy and develop your religious life for God. Yes, Martin Luther did do the Church good, but even Protestant leaders have not fulfilled all 95 letters of Martin Luther, however the Catholic Church has fulfilled some of those 95 letters.[/quote]

So… since you grew up learning it, that’s why it is true? Playing devil’s advocate here, that is kind of an empty statement. Of course the Catholic church is going to teach you that, just like every other church teaches the equivalent. Then you say that Protestants didn’t fulfull all 95 letters, but continue to state that the Catholics fulfulled some… so you mean that noone has actually fullfilled all of them? right?

Sorry for the rant, I think you guys are doing good work and it is good to talk about this stuff. My problem is that humans are fallable. Humans teach the Bible and also wrote the Bible (inspired or not). So to take one over the other is also a fallacy, really.

The goal is to be as close to accurate as possible. I think you should read and understand the Bible on your own and if you are having confusion, you go to someone to help clear the confusion. And not just one someone, but many, that way you aren’t just getting a single person’s interpretation. From that point, if you truly believe in God and His teachings, you can feel inside your heart what is truly the way God wants you to see His word. That isn’t for someone who is new to Christianity, but for someone who knows God’s teachings well (which comes from reading the Word, preferably different versoins and also learning from a host of different teachers, never just one, unless it is Jesus himself). Just like weightlifting, when you first start out, you have a lot to learn. Once you get to a certain point, if you’re truly committed, you learn to read yourself and do what is right without anyone else’s guidance.

Daniel prayed in his closet, right? I think he set an excellent example. But the corruption in the church, which started from the beginning and still continues on 2000 years later will never die, which is why you can’t completely rely on the teachings of others, have to at least find a healthy balance between the 2.

That’s my 2 cents, take it for what it’s worth and please keep the discussion going

[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Typical, a Catholic priest “proving” things through his interpretation of the Bible and not realizing (or blatantly ignoring) how hypocritical he is being. Can’t wait to see how he “proved” that the Catholic church is right and the rest are wrong.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I grew up learning that listening to the Catholic Church is how you learn how to be Holy and develop your religious life for God. Yes, Martin Luther did do the Church good, but even Protestant leaders have not fulfilled all 95 letters of Martin Luther, however the Catholic Church has fulfilled some of those 95 letters.[/quote]

So… since you grew up learning it, that’s why it is true? Playing devil’s advocate here, that is kind of an empty statement. Of course the Catholic church is going to teach you that, just like every other church teaches the equivalent. Then you say that Protestants didn’t fulfull all 95 letters, but continue to state that the Catholics fulfulled some… so you mean that noone has actually fullfilled all of them? right?

Sorry for the rant, I think you guys are doing good work and it is good to talk about this stuff. My problem is that humans are fallable. Humans teach the Bible and also wrote the Bible (inspired or not). So to take one over the other is also a fallacy, really.

The goal is to be as close to accurate as possible. I think you should read and understand the Bible on your own and if you are having confusion, you go to someone to help clear the confusion. And not just one someone, but many, that way you aren’t just getting a single person’s interpretation. From that point, if you truly believe in God and His teachings, you can feel inside your heart what is truly the way God wants you to see His word. That isn’t for someone who is new to Christianity, but for someone who knows God’s teachings well (which comes from reading the Word, preferably different versoins and also learning from a host of different teachers, never just one, unless it is Jesus himself). Just like weightlifting, when you first start out, you have a lot to learn. Once you get to a certain point, if you’re truly committed, you learn to read yourself and do what is right without anyone else’s guidance.

Daniel prayed in his closet, right? I think he set an excellent example. But the corruption in the church, which started from the beginning and still continues on 2000 years later will never die, which is why you can’t completely rely on the teachings of others, have to at least find a healthy balance between the 2.

That’s my 2 cents, take it for what it’s worth and please keep the discussion going[/quote]
absolutely agree. just make sure when you talk to someone and they give you what the bible says, that they back it up with scripture.

As long as you are happy :slight_smile:

Up the punks!

[quote]ckallander wrote:
Up the punks![/quote]

The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]ckallander wrote:
Up the punks![/quote]

The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Revelation 20:15
If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

does not fire burn and hurt?

[quote]Mr octurbo wrote:
does not fire burn and hurt?[/quote]
It doesn’t hurt without a living functional nervous system.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Really? This is complete news to me. As you know, it is somewhat of a common misconception then that hell is quite a painful place. So, are you saying it’s more like a purgatory?

[quote]Mr octurbo wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]ckallander wrote:
Up the punks![/quote]

The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Revelation 20:15
If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

does not fire burn and hurt?[/quote]

you are right it does say that. may i point out that the book of revelation is filled with symbolism. take a look a what else was thrown into the lake of fire:

Revelation 20:14 (previous verse)

“And death and Ha’des were hurled into the lake of fire. this means the second death, the lake of fire.”

How can death be thrown into a lake of fire?

[quote]ckallander wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Really? This is complete news to me. As you know, it is somewhat of a common misconception then that hell is quite a painful place. So, are you saying it’s more like a purgatory?
[/quote]

Look at what Ecclesiastes says about what happens to you when you die:

Ecclesiastes 9:5

For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neiher do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

Ecclesiastes 9:10

“All that your hands finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She’ol, the place to which you are going.”

Ha’des and She’ol both refer to the same place. They are transliterated from Greek and Hebrew respectively.

[quote]ckallander wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Really? This is complete news to me. As you know, it is somewhat of a common misconception then that hell is quite a painful place. So, are you saying it’s more like a purgatory?
[/quote]

I have personally not found any evidence of a purgatory in the Bible. “Hell” is just the grave. plain and simple. when you die, no matter what you did, you go to the grave, just like Adam and Eve did.

Romans 6:23

“For the wages sin pays is death.”

Once you die, that is complete payment for the sin that you inherited.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]ckallander wrote:
Up the punks![/quote]

The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Does not Jesus tell the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31? The Rich Man was in torment after death, and he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tounge. I am not trying to start a fight. Hell is a place of torment, but that torment is the separtation from God.

To ckallander: It is one thing to do good during your life, but what about the bad things you do in your life? Does not the bad things out weigh the good? What is your definition of “being Good.” I am glad you are a good person, but the Bible does not teach that being good gets you to heaven. I dont know about you, but I really can not rely on myself to get me to heaven. I mess up all the time, and it really out weighs all the good I do.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]ckallander wrote:
Up the punks![/quote]

The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Does not Jesus tell the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31? The Rich Man was in torment after death, and he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tounge. I am not trying to start a fight. Hell is a place of torment, but that torment is the separtation from God.

To ckallander: It is one thing to do good during your life, but what about the bad things you do in your life? Does not the bad things out weigh the good? What is your definition of “being Good.” I am glad you are a good person, but the Bible does not teach that being good gets you to heaven. I dont know about you, but I really can not rely on myself to get me to heaven. I mess up all the time, and it really out weighs all the good I do. [/quote]

OK, in that parable, does it say which one did bad things?

[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Typical, a Catholic priest “proving” things through his interpretation of the Bible and not realizing (or blatantly ignoring) how hypocritical he is being. Can’t wait to see how he “proved” that the Catholic church is right and the rest are wrong.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I grew up learning that listening to the Catholic Church is how you learn how to be Holy and develop your religious life for God. Yes, Martin Luther did do the Church good, but even Protestant leaders have not fulfilled all 95 letters of Martin Luther, however the Catholic Church has fulfilled some of those 95 letters.[/quote]

So… since you grew up learning it, that’s why it is true? Playing devil’s advocate here, that is kind of an empty statement. Of course the Catholic church is going to teach you that, just like every other church teaches the equivalent. Then you say that Protestants didn’t fulfull all 95 letters, but continue to state that the Catholics fulfulled some… so you mean that noone has actually fullfilled all of them? right?

Sorry for the rant, I think you guys are doing good work and it is good to talk about this stuff. My problem is that humans are fallable. Humans teach the Bible and also wrote the Bible (inspired or not). So to take one over the other is also a fallacy, really.

The goal is to be as close to accurate as possible. I think you should read and understand the Bible on your own and if you are having confusion, you go to someone to help clear the confusion. And not just one someone, but many, that way you aren’t just getting a single person’s interpretation. From that point, if you truly believe in God and His teachings, you can feel inside your heart what is truly the way God wants you to see His word. That isn’t for someone who is new to Christianity, but for someone who knows God’s teachings well (which comes from reading the Word, preferably different versoins and also learning from a host of different teachers, never just one, unless it is Jesus himself). Just like weightlifting, when you first start out, you have a lot to learn. Once you get to a certain point, if you’re truly committed, you learn to read yourself and do what is right without anyone else’s guidance.

Daniel prayed in his closet, right? I think he set an excellent example. But the corruption in the church, which started from the beginning and still continues on 2000 years later will never die, which is why you can’t completely rely on the teachings of others, have to at least find a healthy balance between the 2.

That’s my 2 cents, take it for what it’s worth and please keep the discussion going[/quote]

Okay, I am sorry but as a lay person, even though I study the Bible and other documents of the Church I would rather go to a well learned Scholar when it came to understanding what to do in a situation.

Here is the situation I have figured out on my own.

Jesus gave us the Church
Jesus said follow the Church that he established through St. Peter.
He said all that did not follow the Church were heretics.
Apostles wrote down what Jesus did and said over the next half decade.
Apostles learned more and wrote more on the Faith over the next 250 years.
The Bible was complete after a few Councils, yet many of them still did not have a Bible, kept preaching the message without a Bible.

So let’s say unofficially the Bible was not put together until 300 something CE, well Jesus never said read the Bible, however he did say listen to his Apostles. So if we believe in the Bible only and that no man has the authority to give us religious wisdom we are basically saying Jesus has deceived us.

So, what the Protestants say is that you only go to Heaven if you 1) believe in Jesus, and 2) you come closer to Jesus through the Bible. Well they are condemning

Another interesting thing to point out is that, if there is absolute truth (which most Christians believe besides Universalitarians) then how can one Protestant say that there is one way to do something and another Protestant says there is another way to do it, obviously one or both of them have to be wrong. As well St. Paul warned us that no Private Interpretation would survive. So out of the 500 Protestant churches to come alive how many have survived, with the original doctrine, and the even the original name?

[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Typical, a Catholic priest “proving” things through his interpretation of the Bible and not realizing (or blatantly ignoring) how hypocritical he is being. Can’t wait to see how he “proved” that the Catholic church is right and the rest are wrong.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I grew up learning that listening to the Catholic Church is how you learn how to be Holy and develop your religious life for God. Yes, Martin Luther did do the Church good, but even Protestant leaders have not fulfilled all 95 letters of Martin Luther, however the Catholic Church has fulfilled some of those 95 letters.[/quote]

So… since you grew up learning it, that’s why it is true? Playing devil’s advocate here, that is kind of an empty statement. Of course the Catholic church is going to teach you that, just like every other church teaches the equivalent. Then you say that Protestants didn’t fulfull all 95 letters, but continue to state that the Catholics fulfulled some… so you mean that noone has actually fullfilled all of them? right?

Sorry for the rant, I think you guys are doing good work and it is good to talk about this stuff. My problem is that humans are fallable. Humans teach the Bible and also wrote the Bible (inspired or not). So to take one over the other is also a fallacy, really.

The goal is to be as close to accurate as possible. I think you should read and understand the Bible on your own and if you are having confusion, you go to someone to help clear the confusion. And not just one someone, but many, that way you aren’t just getting a single person’s interpretation. From that point, if you truly believe in God and His teachings, you can feel inside your heart what is truly the way God wants you to see His word. That isn’t for someone who is new to Christianity, but for someone who knows God’s teachings well (which comes from reading the Word, preferably different versoins and also learning from a host of different teachers, never just one, unless it is Jesus himself). Just like weightlifting, when you first start out, you have a lot to learn. Once you get to a certain point, if you’re truly committed, you learn to read yourself and do what is right without anyone else’s guidance.
[/quote]
The goal is to be accurate as possible? Well would it not be accurate to follow what Jesus says, to follow the Church he built? Most Protestant friends get upset with me when I say this but I always tell them that they just have a copied copy and incomplete version of a translation of the Catholic Bible. I do not know why they are so afraid to admit that the Catholic church is the first Church, therefore unless Jesus deceived us is still the only Church and the rest are our separated Brethren that I wish one day to come back to the Church.

Yes there is corruption in the Church through out our History. Yet we have had extraordinarily high times. However to say that it started in the beginning and continues is false. And if you say the Catholic Church is no longer valid you are saying Jesus has deceived us.

[quote]

That’s my 2 cents, take it for what it’s worth and please keep the discussion going[/quote]

[quote]ckallander wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Really? This is complete news to me. As you know, it is somewhat of a common misconception then that hell is quite a painful place. So, are you saying it’s more like a purgatory?
[/quote]

Purgatory is painful since you are being purified by the fire.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ckallander wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Really? This is complete news to me. As you know, it is somewhat of a common misconception then that hell is quite a painful place. So, are you saying it’s more like a purgatory?
[/quote]

Purgatory is painful since you are being purified by the fire.[/quote]

Not according to Aquinas.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I trust my interpretation of the Bible than the church’s interpretation. At least if I make a mistake, I can blame myself. [/quote]

Maximus, think about it this way though:

A. How will you know if you make a mistake unless you have something against which to measure it?

B. who is more likely to have a richly informed & true understanding of the Bible? -

  1. thousands of some of the greatest minds in the Western Tradition who have been thinking, researching, translating, and meditating upon what the Holy Bible means for two thousand years?

  2. Or, little ol’ Katzenjammer who is limited in so many ways, and especially in time; and here in at least two particular ways: 1. short life span, 2. a kind of “provincialism in time” because no mater how much education we receive free us from the cultural assumptions that are dominant in our time, it is impossible to fully escape them.

It’s certainly good to read the Bible “naked” - but to only read it “naked” is to court heresy and error, which we are, all of us, always liable to fall into, as we are merely human and imperfect - and against which Church doctrine and formal Exegesis is, IMO, a necessary counterweight.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]ckallander wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Really? This is complete news to me. As you know, it is somewhat of a common misconception then that hell is quite a painful place. So, are you saying it’s more like a purgatory?
[/quote]

I have personally not found any evidence of a purgatory in the Bible. “Hell” is just the grave. plain and simple. when you die, no matter what you did, you go to the grave, just like Adam and Eve did.

Romans 6:23

“For the wages sin pays is death.”

Once you die, that is complete payment for the sin that you inherited.[/quote]

Well instead of saying you have not found evidence in the Bible of purgatory, go to the folks that have been spreading this word for over 1900 years and that do say there is purgatory and ask them to show you. The proof is there, the Catholic Church has come to terms that some people will not listen (at least outside of the Church) unless it comes from the Bible and elaborated on in the past.

What I think most people misunderstand and cannot grasp is that the first Catholic Bishops wrote the New Testament. It was determined to be divinely written. However, when this was established we did not know everything about our religion. Through the years we have learned more and more about our religion and thus writing our doctrine on Catholic wisdom and Biblical knowledge. So the Church created the Bible it also created other doctrine, so why would we not listen to the other Doctrine if Jesus tells us to listen to the doctrine of the Church. All doctrine is, is what the Apostles have passed down onto future generations about the religion and how it should be done.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Typical, a Catholic priest “proving” things through his interpretation of the Bible and not realizing (or blatantly ignoring) how hypocritical he is being. Can’t wait to see how he “proved” that the Catholic church is right and the rest are wrong.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I grew up learning that listening to the Catholic Church is how you learn how to be Holy and develop your religious life for God. Yes, Martin Luther did do the Church good, but even Protestant leaders have not fulfilled all 95 letters of Martin Luther, however the Catholic Church has fulfilled some of those 95 letters.[/quote]

So… since you grew up learning it, that’s why it is true? Playing devil’s advocate here, that is kind of an empty statement. Of course the Catholic church is going to teach you that, just like every other church teaches the equivalent. Then you say that Protestants didn’t fulfull all 95 letters, but continue to state that the Catholics fulfulled some… so you mean that noone has actually fullfilled all of them? right?

Sorry for the rant, I think you guys are doing good work and it is good to talk about this stuff. My problem is that humans are fallable. Humans teach the Bible and also wrote the Bible (inspired or not). So to take one over the other is also a fallacy, really.

The goal is to be as close to accurate as possible. I think you should read and understand the Bible on your own and if you are having confusion, you go to someone to help clear the confusion. And not just one someone, but many, that way you aren’t just getting a single person’s interpretation. From that point, if you truly believe in God and His teachings, you can feel inside your heart what is truly the way God wants you to see His word. That isn’t for someone who is new to Christianity, but for someone who knows God’s teachings well (which comes from reading the Word, preferably different versoins and also learning from a host of different teachers, never just one, unless it is Jesus himself). Just like weightlifting, when you first start out, you have a lot to learn. Once you get to a certain point, if you’re truly committed, you learn to read yourself and do what is right without anyone else’s guidance.

Daniel prayed in his closet, right? I think he set an excellent example. But the corruption in the church, which started from the beginning and still continues on 2000 years later will never die, which is why you can’t completely rely on the teachings of others, have to at least find a healthy balance between the 2.

That’s my 2 cents, take it for what it’s worth and please keep the discussion going[/quote]

Okay, I am sorry but as a lay person, even though I study the Bible and other documents of the Church I would rather go to a well learned Scholar when it came to understanding what to do in a situation.

Here is the situation I have figured out on my own.

Jesus gave us the Church
Jesus said follow the Church that he established through St. Peter.
He said all that did not follow the Church were heretics.
Apostles wrote down what Jesus did and said over the next half decade.
Apostles learned more and wrote more on the Faith over the next 250 years.
The Bible was complete after a few Councils, yet many of them still did not have a Bible, kept preaching the message without a Bible.

So let’s say unofficially the Bible was not put together until 300 something CE, well Jesus never said read the Bible, however he did say listen to his Apostles. So if we believe in the Bible only and that no man has the authority to give us religious wisdom we are basically saying Jesus has deceived us.

So, what the Protestants say is that you only go to Heaven if you 1) believe in Jesus, and 2) you come closer to Jesus through the Bible. Well they are condemning

Another interesting thing to point out is that, if there is absolute truth (which most Christians believe besides Universalitarians) then how can one Protestant say that there is one way to do something and another Protestant says there is another way to do it, obviously one or both of them have to be wrong. As well St. Paul warned us that no Private Interpretation would survive. So out of the 500 Protestant churches to come alive how many have survived, with the original doctrine, and the even the original name?[/quote]

I will agree that Jesus gave us the Church. He gave us the catholic church not the Catholic Church. Some of the first Bishops were part of the Orthodox Church headed in Constantinople. The Catholic Church became Political in nature and tied themselves by claiming apostolic succession from St. Peter. They also Excommunicated the Patricarch of the Orthodox Church. The Patricarch was part of the churches first founded by Paul. The church in Rome did not come about until he was arrested, so claiming that the Catholic Church was first is up to interpretation.

I will also agree that the Bible was passed on by telling the word and not writing it, but once the Bible was written that became the benchmark of all future beliefs and definitions. When you talk of heresy the Bible is the Benchmark. Most Protestants who say follow the Bible and not the Church are decived, and those that beleive that going to Church without reading the Bible are also decieved. You need them both equally. To deny the inspired word of the Lord is also Heresy. The church is the one who brought the word together, so in denying the word you are denying the church.

As you say Jesus said, “listen to the apostles.” The apostles wrote down what Jesus said. Logically to deny the writings of the Apostles is to deny what Jesus said. I listen to the apostles when I read the words that they wrote down.

You also talk about name changes from the begining. Did not St. Peter get a name change from Jesus. Did St. Paul get a name change from Jesus.

I am not trying to say you are wrong, I just want you to think, and not just follow what the Priest says. I have read through the Bible twice and I was given a Catholic Bible for Christmas to read through. I am going to read through the Apocropha books first because I have never read them.