Catholic Church is more Biblical than Protestantism!

[e.r.m.]

For the ones that have not known Jesus: Romans 2:14.So there is an example for the issue above. I understand what you are trying to say. But in every instance that I have been a part of: The dogma of the individual has been acrimonious at best. You start pinning people to their beliefs and ask for the scripture reference then that is when satan takes hold of them.
As you have not flipped out yet (and thank you for that) I can discuss these things.
OK.
1. My belief is that the belief in Christ (as in Rom 10-9-10 and other places in the NT) declare the need and requirements for salvation.
2. If you add that you are required to understand the essence of G-d (the trinity) then you have added to the requirement for salvation.

3. I do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and all that that means.

Also: I think/believe that the book of John was written long after the other 3 gospels. And that John had access those gospels before he wrote his. Most of the record points to as late as 90AD for the finished work and that it might have taken as long as 20yrs.
With that said: Most people never put his words in to that context

"You start pinning people to their beliefs and ask for the scripture reference then that is when satan takes hold of them."

I think on forums such as this people have little thicker skins, and are willing to be challenged with scripture references.

 

[pearl]

It's also divine 2 Peter 1:20-21,

on the “inspiration” of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2PT 2 and clever tales 2 Pt 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 PT 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers. Instead of under the influence of God, or “holy ones of God.”
2Tim 3:16
All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for….” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. The scriptures are the word of God in human language.
When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

unBiblical teachings in Catholicism.

Referring to which? I have stated many times the Church makes no claim that everything it teaches is found in Scripture.

 

[e.r.m.]

on the “inspiration” of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2PT 2 and clever tales 2 Pt 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 PT 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers. Instead of under the influence of God, or “holy ones of God.”
2Tim 3:16
All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for….” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. The scriptures are the word of God in human language.
When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!



Referring to which? I have stated many times the Church makes no claim that everything it teaches is found in Scripture.

I commend that both you and metis make better rebuttals and arguments than I have seen from the "by grace alone, through faith alone" adherents. You guys also actually address what we say instead of just posing the next argument "Well what about..." without addressing the last rebuttal. I see more integrity in the Catholic way of communicating.

I will try to get back to you on this soon. My pocket of time has expired. I respect your knowledge though.

 

[rational experiences]

After the ice age humans lived.

Innocent meek and spiritual.

Star fall returned to earth burnt brain of men the history theist human of all human only science terms.

So real science like geology says machine invention science isn't real science. I talk about earths natural body I don't change it.

It's an AI practice that places God earths mass a machine by human terms in a Fixed transition position....
As if natural earth sealed mass shifted by one body term.

To own use the machine.

Back in time.

Then it allowed him back in time to do a ground reaction.

So we lost heavens cooling as back in time heavens gases were hot too.

So his pyramid using cool cloud gases in mountain temple and mountain tip was ∆ attacked blew up. As they heated.

As cloud cooled transmitters is in science by humans first compared above to sealed rock below. No similarity whatsoever.

Isn't in reality compared to mass of earths manipulated thesis. By human men as they begin thesis with machines position first.

No man is God teaching natural law and natural life versus machine satanic science.

Why the science community said Satan would take over life on earth. As the cult agreement.

So Jesus being what terms modern science wants brought again was the above attack mountain temple ended science of man down below to the ground. Blew up ground temples ground pyramid toppled. Sink holes gained. In sciences chosen past.

As science of man had already been destroyed from beginning to caused end. Moses advice.

Today they say new science of old science themes I want to copy using thesis.....yet old science man of the sciences beginnings actually blew up.

Why blowing up methods is in nuclear power plant model to day and very dangerous actually.

As no human owns natural law in created creation anywhere.

The humans ego one human is as any one human everyone's teaching.

So some one humans are intelligent yet most aren't. As religious science is still human science and it isn't holier science.

Scientists program use all programs by machines. Step away from the machines to prove your theories by man control only are fake. In natural law is human natural life a human and science is the liar.

 

[rational experiences]

The church said before Rome rebuilt used ground temple pyramid sciences implementing Stonehenge which blew up.

The term of Jesus reborn present was before any occult machine practice actually. If you cared to read the human advice about humans healed genetics had returned.

As the humans with returned healed genetics then attacked hurt were by humans past life memory advised.

Could reason natural human history from Moses mutation of life. To returned healed human genesis and why it began being sacrificed again.

Isn't a machines scientific thesis we'll be the small human cult group who'll survive and the same humans will all mutate...as I'm a special human belief.

As all humans had mutated and to be a human is defined by species type the human.

The Moses advice said the species a human had barely survived owning any human genetic expressions. Only a small human genetic expressions survived the teaching.

When you realise the cult group mentality by cult group says I'm the special human always.

Ignores all humans are in species one human actually.

 

[e.r.m.]

Referring to which?

Primarly, I was endeavoring with InChrist to draw her attention to the Bible. I maintain that infant baptism is not "Biblical". Catholic justifications are done outside the Bible (e.g.-church accomodating to the plague and such). There is not a Biblical precedence for the ongoing authority of apostleship, that priests, like the apostles could "forgive" the sins of it's parishioners. The paraclete is a new argument, which I've yet to fully process.
No precedence for Pope in the Bible. Peter was not the first Pope as with the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, James was in charge. There was no one person (aside from the Holy Spirit) leading the entire movement. And more... but just a few examples.

I have stated many times the Church makes no claim that everything it teaches is found in Scripture.

Acknowledged. Just answering the question.

 

[pearl]

No precedence for Pope in the Bible. Peter was not the first Pope as with the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, James was in charge. There was no one person (aside from the Holy Spirit) leading the entire movement. And more... but just a few examples.

Apostolic succession is not an individualistic mechanical list of an individual to his predecessor, it is the Apostolic teaching not a person.

The paraclete is a new argument, which I've yet to fully process.

Paraclete, Parakletos of John's Gospel, the Spirit of Truth, IOW, the Holy Spirit, also in
1 John 2:1.

 

[e.r.m.]

Apostolic succession is not an individualistic mechanical list of an individual to his predecessor, it is the Apostolic teaching not a person.



Paraclete, Parakletos of John's Gospel, the Spirit of Truth, IOW, the Holy Spirit, also in
1 John 2:1.

I understood on both points, but thank you. What I have to process is the idea of the ongoing counsel of the Holy Spirit as a justification of changing things from the scriptures as time goes by.

 

[paradox]

I understood on both points, but thank you. What I have to process is the idea of the ongoing counsel of the Holy Spirit as a justification of changing things from the scriptures as time goes by.

The work of holly spirit "until end of times" is biblical.

Arguments based on claims "changing things from the scriptures" are based on "it's not explicitly written in scriptures" rather than "it contradicts scriptures"

 

[e.r.m.]

The work of holly spirit "until end of times" is biblical.

Arguments based on claims "changing things from the scriptures" are based on "it's not explicitly written in scriptures" rather than "it contradicts scriptures"

I meant the latter.

 

[TreeOfLife]

I meant the latter.

But isn't the work of the HS based on absolute truth? If so then there would be nothing that would change scripture.

There could be things added due to end times etc. But u can't think of truth changing

 

[paradox]

I meant the latter.

can you give an example of a doctrine that is contradictory to scriptures?

 

[e.r.m.]

But isn't the work of the HS based on absolute truth? If so then there would be nothing that would change scripture.

There could be things added due to end times etc. But u can't think of truth changing

Agreed. And catholic teachings do seem to change that of earlier teachings.

 

[e.r.m.]

can you give an example of a doctrine that is contradictory to scriptures?

For example

Jesus said
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Luke 24:46-47 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, [47] and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Peter said
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Philip said
Acts 8:36-38 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" [37] Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." [38] So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Being a disciple of Jesus goes before or hand in hand with the person being baptized, not his parent(s) on his/her behalf. Believing and Repenting was a prerequesite to being baptized.

Infant baptism due to the plague or whatever reason, takes away this requirement from the person being baptized as was required in scriptures. It says that can be done later, whereas scriptures places it as a requirement before. That is a change and a contradiction with the scriptures.

 

[paradox]

For example

Jesus said
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Luke 24:46-47 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, [47] and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Peter said
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Philip said
Acts 8:36-38 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" [37] Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." [38] So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Being a disciple of Jesus goes before or hand in hand with the person being baptized, not his parent(s) on his/her behalf. Believing and Repenting was a prerequesite to being baptized.

Infant baptism due to the plague or whatever reason, takes away this requirement from the person being baptized as was required in scriptures. It says that can be done later, whereas scriptures places it as a requirement before. That is a change and a contradiction with the scriptures.

Which is better? to save life or to kill?
Mark 3:4

If a child dies without being baptized, will the child go to heaven or hell?
which ever your answer is, how would you biblically back it up?

When an infant grows up and is able to judge for himself he\she does the confirmation which is his\her acceptance of baptism and receival of holly spirit.

Further more infant baptism is not a Catholic only thing, Eastern orthodox churches practice it as well.
If you didn't know, infant baptism dates back to early Christians, time when there was only one church of Jesus.

I don't see why would Catholics and orthodox Christians have to abolish millenia long tradition guided by holly spirit, just because some new age "Christians of the book" think so?

 

[pearl]

Infant baptism due to the plague or whatever reason, takes away this requirement from the person being baptized as was required in scriptures. It says that can be done later, whereas scriptures places it as a requirement before. That is a change and a contradiction with the scriptures.

Baptism in the Church is a sacrament of initiation into the community of Christians. In the Roman Church initiation is not fulfilled until Confirmation. In the Eastern Catholic tradition baptism, eucharist, and confirmation is fulfilled at once.

A final significant development in baptismal rites in the West was the separation of three liturgical acts: baptism, the anointing that came to be known as confirmation, and first communion.
Roman Catholic - Reformed Dialogue (usccb.org)

 

[e.r.m.]

Which is better? to save life or to kill? Mark 3:4

If a child dies without being baptized, will the child go to heaven or hell?
which ever your answer is, how would you biblically back it up?

To heaven.
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Oh, and original sin is not scriptural either.

When an infant grows up and is able to judge for himself he\she does the confirmation which is his\her acceptance of baptism and receival of holly spirit.

I'm aware of how the tradition works.

Further more infant baptism is not a Catholic only thing, Eastern orthodox churches practice it as well.
If you didn't know, infant baptism dates back to early Christians, time when there was only one church of Jesus.

Not early enough. The earliest did as the Bible did, which shows how it started, and only later evolved into infant baptism.
This quote from Justin Martyr is approximately A.D. 155, about fifty-five years after the Apostle John died:
And for [water baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed. (Justin, First Apology 61)

Justin was born around 100 AD and was converted around age 30 AD, which makes this belief as early as 30 years after John died. Since he said he learned this from the Apostles, then this is what the Apostles taught.

I don't see why would Catholics and orthodox Christians have to abolish millenia long tradition guided by holly spirit, just because some new age "Christians of the book" think so?

The Holy Spirit would not contradict himself. Scrap the whole practice millenia and all, as churches who do follow the original New Testament church on this practice have done.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism in the Church is a sacrament of initiation into the community of Christians. In the Roman Church initiation is not fulfilled until Confirmation. In the Eastern Catholic tradition baptism, eucharist, and confirmation is fulfilled at once.

A final significant development in baptismal rites in the West was the separation of three liturgical acts: baptism, the anointing that came to be known as confirmation, and first communion.
Roman Catholic - Reformed Dialogue (usccb.org)

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Muffled]

Tradition is worthless unless backed up by the scriptures. Colossians 2:8 Even in John's day, some went out from the truth and were teaching false doctrine. 1 John 2:18-19 and 1 John 4:1-3

I do not believe that tradition is worthless. Tradition is only worthless when it contradicts the Bible or is in error. I believe any tradition has to be verified by the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic church has a tradition that the Pope is infallible but there is nothing in scripture that guarantees that. It is a fallacy not supported by the Spirit of God.

 

[Muffled]

You mean things like calling no man Father, and forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats?

I believe those traditions qualify as worthless because they are contrary to the Bible.