The better question would be to ask, which books of the Bible have always been considered inspired, and which books of the Bible were NOT considered inspired until the council of Trent in the sixteenth century. You could also ask who changed their status, and why, though we already know the answers Roman Catholics give.
Mother Of God?
- Thread starter Jruiz
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have never seen a ring kissed in the church by anyone. Maybe the pope?
"Call no man Father" i think that's what your referring to here. This verse is simply stating that we shouldn't honour men more than God. Our Lord is using hyperbole here as well. If he meant this literally then no son or daughter would be allowed to call his/her father "father".
When a priest forgives sins it it not he that forgives them, but God. He(the priest) represents Christ visibly but the real Christ is there invisibly.
Mary is an intercessor between humanity and Christ. Christ is the only intercessor between humanity and God the Father. There were statues in the Temple of God built by Solomon.
I dont' know how many priests you have met but the great majority of them that I have come across are quite humble. More than I can say for some protestant TV preachers.
The Pharisee's problem wasn't a false region so much but that they thought they were saved because of their great knowledge of Scripture.(John 5:39)
"Call no man Father" i think that's what your referring to here. This verse is simply stating that we shouldn't honour men more than God. Our Lord is using hyperbole here as well. If he meant this literally then no son or daughter would be allowed to call his/her father "father".
When a priest forgives sins it it not he that forgives them, but God. He(the priest) represents Christ visibly but the real Christ is there invisibly.
Mary is an intercessor between humanity and Christ. Christ is the only intercessor between humanity and God the Father. There were statues in the Temple of God built by Solomon.
I dont' know how many priests you have met but the great majority of them that I have come across are quite humble. More than I can say for some protestant TV preachers.
The Pharisee's problem wasn't a false region so much but that they thought they were saved because of their great knowledge of Scripture.(John 5:39)
Huh!
You have answered your own question!
The very fact that we all have access to the SAME Scripture means that is absolutely possible, and proper, to not only question one own beliefs, but the beliefs of others.
The Church Fathers AND the RCC, and anyone else are fallible beings, whose beliefs and writings are subject to scrutiny with the Word of God standing as the ultimate standard!
You have answered your own question!
The very fact that we all have access to the SAME Scripture means that is absolutely possible, and proper, to not only question one own beliefs, but the beliefs of others.
The Church Fathers AND the RCC, and anyone else are fallible beings, whose beliefs and writings are subject to scrutiny with the Word of God standing as the ultimate standard!
.
Does the bible state who this divine authority is? I'm sure that there is such an authority, and that God does preserve the authority but a problem for me is how is it known conclusively who this divine appointed authority are. I consider all 66 books of the bible to be spiritually inspired and completely accurate and trustworthy. No, I'm not part of the divine authority just only stating what is evident to myself.
Does the bible state who this divine authority is? I'm sure that there is such an authority, and that God does preserve the authority but a problem for me is how is it known conclusively who this divine appointed authority are. I consider all 66 books of the bible to be spiritually inspired and completely accurate and trustworthy. No, I'm not part of the divine authority just only stating what is evident to myself.
Please tell us which Scriptures were not always considered inspired, aside from the apocrypha, which was NOT accepted as Scripture or inspired, even though it was sometimes included in the Bible.
2 Timothy 3:1 says that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. The apocrypha was not considered inspired, because it does not align with Scripture. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21
2 Timothy 3:1 says that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. The apocrypha was not considered inspired, because it does not align with Scripture. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21
You are right in that is is proper to use the Bible to question you own and others beliefs. But not insomuch as to seek to overrule the Church started by Our Lord. Which He said would be guided to ALL Truth(John 16:12-13).
Members of the catholic church are indeed fallible just as you or I are. The only thing that makes the Catholic Church different is its magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit when ruling on doctrinal matters. It can't be in error.
Members of the catholic church are indeed fallible just as you or I are. The only thing that makes the Catholic Church different is its magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit when ruling on doctrinal matters. It can't be in error.
Complete garbage!
The RCC is composed of people, fallible people!
The so-called magisterium of the RCC is nothing more than a bunch of blokes (no girls) with man-made titles like Bishop and Pope who make decisions for the RCC.
You claim that they are infallible because of the Holy Spirit is just sophistry!
The SAME Holy Spirit indwells me and I KNOW that I am NOT infallible.
The fiction that the RCC has any kind of authority not available to any other Christian is simply ludicrous....
The RCC is composed of people, fallible people!
The so-called magisterium of the RCC is nothing more than a bunch of blokes (no girls) with man-made titles like Bishop and Pope who make decisions for the RCC.
You claim that they are infallible because of the Holy Spirit is just sophistry!
The SAME Holy Spirit indwells me and I KNOW that I am NOT infallible.
The fiction that the RCC has any kind of authority not available to any other Christian is simply ludicrous....
The New Testament has always been considered inspired. I am not surprised it took your beloved institution so long to agree with the rest of us. To help you catch up, you may consider this:
The Christian church has always considered the New Testament documents to be inspired. Though in the early church there were some debates on which New Testament books to include in the Bible, God worked through the Christian church to recognize those inspired works. Therefore we now have 27 inspired books for the New Testament.
In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Pet. 3:16, Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." This means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them.
So, we can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, that Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God, and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. https://carm.org/bible-inspired
In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Pet. 3:16, Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." This means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them.
So, we can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, that Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God, and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. https://carm.org/bible-inspired
And the RCC did not even exist at this time......
The RCC cannot be regarded as a separate entity until the Great Schism (1054) when centuries of bullying by the Roman Patriarch culminated in the split with the eastern churches that later called themselves the Orthodox church.
The whole fiction of Apostolic succession, of Peter being the first Pope, all fiction, worthy of a Dan Brown novel, but not tenable as factual church history.
The Council of Trent had NOTHING to do with the RCC - it didn't exist!
The RCC cannot be regarded as a separate entity until the Great Schism (1054) when centuries of bullying by the Roman Patriarch culminated in the split with the eastern churches that later called themselves the Orthodox church.
The whole fiction of Apostolic succession, of Peter being the first Pope, all fiction, worthy of a Dan Brown novel, but not tenable as factual church history.
The Council of Trent had NOTHING to do with the RCC - it didn't exist!