/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>1561

>The pope as a representing and uniting figure can invoke this infallibility.

So the pope is responsible for invoking his own infallibility?

If he is fallible before this invocation, how do you know that he did it right?

>>1576

Also

How long does it last?

Does he know when it's over?

Why does he not invoke this power all the time?

>>1576

>So the pope is responsible for invoking his own infallibility?

Yes

>If he is fallible before this invocation, how do you know that he did it right?

He's guided.

>>1577

>How long does it last?

Only in the matter at hand.

For instance he makes a decree on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then he is only infallible in the decree and not after it. Also only in the parts of the decree on matters of faith.

>>1577

>Why does he not invoke this power all the time?

It is only for moral mattters and matters of faith and he can only invoke it there.

It was not very often invoked in the last 2000 years

>>1583

Interesting.

Sounds a lot like the doctrines of men if you ask me.

I mean, I don't remember the bible saying anything about any of that.

I must have missed it, could you point me to the passage that lays all this out?

>>1586

>Sounds a lot like the doctrines of men if you ask me.

Dogma has not to be rooted in the bible.

The bible is only one part of dogma and was collected and affirmed by us.

The Church and Christianity is however older than the bible so the bible can't be the only source of Christianity.

>I must have missed it, could you point me to the passage that lays all this out?

There is no need. The magisterium decrees this and the magisterium could even "change"read: correting it the bible.

>>1587

>The magisterium decrees this and the magisterium could even "change"read: correting it the bible.

Yeah the bible warns us about that.

Daniel 7:25

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

>and think to change times and laws:

Kinda like how the Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath day to Sunday.

And just removed the commandment against idolatry.

Why do you put your faith in men, rather than God?

Perhaps you will say you have both faith in men, and faith in God.

But I say to you, you are obviously placing the words of men above the word of God.

You cannot serve two masters. see Matthew 6:24

I say you should serve God, and stand on His word.

>>1602

>Idolatry is forbidden and still a commandment.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-ten-commandments.html

1 I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.

2 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

3 Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.

4 Honor your father and your mother.

5 You shall not kill.

6 You shall not commit adultery.

7 You shall not steal.

8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

9 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

10 You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20

And God spake all these words, saying,

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

>Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

>The bible was written by men and was collected by men and was preserved by men and was translated by men and was translated by men again.

I believe that God preserved His word, so that we could all have an opportunity to hear it.

People used to take care not to change the word of God.(embed related)

Why would God only give His word to a specific group?

Didn't Jesus say to "teach all nations"

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Clearly He wanted the world to hear this message, and to have His word.

>>1606

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

Catechism is always a good source in regard to Catholicism.

Citing:

I am the LORD your God,

who brought you out

of the land of Egypt,

out of the house of bondage.

You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself a graven image,

or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

or that is in the earth beneath,

or that is in the water under the earth;

you shall not bow down to them or serve them;

for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,

visiting the iniquity of the fathers

upon the children to the third and the fourth

generation of those who hate me,

but showing steadfast love to thousands of those

who love me and keep my commandments.

Citing ends

This forbids idolatry

>I believe that God preserved His word, so that we could all have an opportunity to hear it.

People used to take care not to change the word of God.

So you believe that god guided the early church,since it was her who made the bible, but stopped guiding the church at a certain time later?

When was that and why did it take place?

>People used to take care not to change the word of God.

Yes the Holy Church did and protected it from people like the Arians or Protestants that wanted to change it.

>Why would God only give His word to a specific group?

>Didn't Jesus say to "teach all nations"

I do not know why, pardon.

Are you implying that a pagan has the word of God too?

>Clearly He wanted the world to hear this message, and to have His word.

Yes I agree and this is what should be done.

I think you get me wrong a little bit.

The bible is absolutely and 100% true but it needs to be interpreted and preserved which is the task of the magisterium.

>>1611

>So you believe that god guided the early church,since it was her who made the bible, but stopped guiding the church at a certain time later?

I believe that scripture was inspired by God, and not to be altered.

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I believe that God still guides people, but that not all people who claim to be guided by God really are.

Jesus told us how to tell the difference.

Matthew 7:16

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

>Are you implying that a pagan has the word of God too?

Anyone who owns a bible has the word of God.

>The bible is absolutely and 100% true

Then it should never be changed.

Because then it would not be true anymore.

It's kinda like how God does not change.

Do you know why?

Because He is already perfect, and any change would be towards imperfection.

>>1616

>I believe that scripture was inspired by God, and not to be altered.

How good do you speak aramaic and ancient greek then?

>Jesus told us how to tell the difference.

Matthew 7:16

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Since the Catholic church bears the best fruits of all "churches" imo I put my trust in her.

>Anyone who owns a bible has the word of God.

Which bible? there is a lot of bibles and only one can be the right one….

>Then it should never be changed.

It should not. It also does not.

>>1617

>How is that not idolatry?

We do not worship Mary we pray for her intercession before God.

Idolatry is better read in a way that points to worshipping the one true God that revealed himself through his son and the bible.

Not a made up God.

This made up God can be a statue that you worship or even an "interpretation" of God that strays apart from the true God.

Modernists that adjust the bible in a way that it fits to liberal values are idolaters i.e.

They do not worship the true God that revealed himself but an artificial God that they made up by themselves to fit their values.

>>1618

>How good do you speak aramaic and ancient greek then?

Nitpick much?

Obviously it is alright to translate it.

>Since the Catholic church bears the best fruits of all "churches" imo I put my trust in her.

Yeah like the blood of the saints, of those slain by the Roman Catholic Church.

Really good fruit on that tree.

Or perhaps you were talking about how the Pope said even atheists will be saved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-dont-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html

Really good works they are doing spreading lies.

>Which bible?

The King James Version of course. (embed related)

>It should not. It also does not.

Didn't you just say that changing it was ok?

>>1602

>We did that yes. Nothing wrong with that.

>Idolatry is better read in a way that points to worshipping the one true God…

The bible defines it right there in the commandment.

>You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;

It says you shall not make a graven image.

It says you shall not bow down to them.

It said nothing about who it was you were praying to.

That was covered in the first commandment.

>You shall have no other gods before me.

>>1626

>Obviously it is alright to translate it.

Why? Every translation is an interpretation and the word itself is therfore altered.

>Yeah like the blood of the saints, of those slain by the Roman Catholic Church.

>

>Really good fruit on that tree.

Never happened.

>Or perhaps you were talking about how the Pope said even atheists will be saved.

Except for he never said that. wtf the liberal media is lying again. Here's what he said:

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

citation ends

>The King James Version of course. (embed related)

So only people that read the KJV no idea why that one will watch vid later have the word of god? Interesting.

>Didn't you just say that changing it was ok?

I said that correcting mistakes is ok.

>The bible defines it right there in the commandment.

>or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above

> or that is in the earth beneath

Not according to us. We also still don't worship statues.

>That was covered in the first commandment.

They go together.

>This looks a lot like worship.

Maybe, but it ain't.

>For comparison have some Chinese people worshipping Mao. I see no difference between what the Catholics are doing with Mary and what these Chinese people are doing with Mao.

People actually believe that he is kinda a god and sacrifice to him. This is not what we do. We explicitly claim that she is no goddess and can't act against divine will anyway.

not that she would want to

>Especially when God specifically forbids bowing to statues etc.

The bible is trying to make a point here.

Back in the day and in modern China as your pictures show people would go to certain shrines to sacrifice for certain deities/bribe them to be granted their powers or fortune.

They actually worshipped the statues and thought of them of either incarnations of their deities or places where they could most easily transcend into our plain and grant favours against sacrifice/spiritual energy.

It was necessary to do that and only possible in this places at the right deity for the right chose.

When the bible says you shall not bow before images it means not to worship statues.

contextual reading according to the stuff that the bible referred to when it was written.

i.e. it also says that you shall call no man father, but still you call your father father as your priest, or not?

Bowing/kneeling before something is a simple gesture of reverence, and Saints are to be revered.

Do you take oaths? You shouldn't then.

Do you wear mixed clothing? Stop it right now.

You wear no hat to cover your head when praying? Better start with that now…etcpp

>>1630

>They actually worshipped the statues and thought of them of either incarnations of their deities or places where they could most easily transcend into our plain and grant favours against sacrifice/spiritual energy.

And Catholics believe in appearances of Mary etc, they want her blessing and intercession with God. This is the same idea as praying to Mao or going to a statue to offer things, some Catholics even do the offerings to statues of Mary.

>When the bible says you shall not bow before images it means not to worship statues.

Which is what Catholics are doing:

- Bowing, praying and offering to statues

- Trying to gain the favor of a saint

There is no difference to what those Chinese are doing.

>contextual reading according to the stuff that the bible referred to when it was written.

So you think it is ok to worship idols and statues just because a length of time has passed?

>>1630

>Why? Every translation is an interpretation and the word itself is therfore altered.

Jesus said to teach all nations. Remember?

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It's easier to teach them in their native language.

>Never happened.

You deny history that even a Pope admits to.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

What is the basis for the denial of such a historic event?

>The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

That's not what the bible teaches.

Acts 16:30,31

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Doesn't say anything about obeying your conscience.

>Maybe, but it ain't.

You are blind.

>Do you take oaths? You shouldn't then.

>Do you wear mixed clothing? Stop it right now.

Separate issues, and none were ever commandments.

Apples and oranges.

>>1635

>And Catholics believe in appearances of Mary

Yes, it actually happened.

> This is the same idea as praying to Mao or going to a statue to offer things

No, she intercesses for sinners before God almighty and not does demand glory for herself/power in order to provide certain wishes.

> - Bowing, praying and offering to statues

nope

> - Trying to gain the favor of a saint

uhh kinda yes

>There is no difference to what those Chinese are doing.

There is

>So you think it is ok to worship idols and statues just because a length of time has passed?

nope which is why we condemn this practice.

>>1636

>Jesus said to teach all nations. Remember?

Everyone can learn all languages.

>It's easier to teach them in their native language.

ok but the end goal should be the original then, shouldn't it?

>Doesn't say anything about obeying your conscience.

Jeremiah 31,33

>But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days—oracle of the Lord. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

>You deny history that even a Pope admits to.

We already had that,but it reminds me that I wanted to make a thread on the Holy Inquisition

>You are blind.

No, I see the difference between reverring non-gods and worshiping deities

>Separate issues, and none were ever commandments.

>Apples and oranges.

So is only the bible infallibile or even only the commandments then?

>>1630

>it also says that you shall call no man father, but still you call your father father as your priest, or not?

No.

Jesus said "call no man your father"

And He was obviously referring to religious leaders.

Matthew 23:7-12

And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Notice the context.

People were calling men Rabbi, and Master.

These were religious leaders, or elders.

Jesus clearly spoke against such doctrine.

And went on to say call no man your father.

Yet Catholics want to call their priests father.

Why?

You can use any other word.

Call them priest, call them sir, but no, lets call them the one thing Jesus said not to.

The point he was trying to make is you shouldn't look for God in a man.

You can just go to God.

Hence the Lords prayer.

Jesus gave us an example, and in his example He prayed directly to God.

Besides that only God can forgive sins.

Why do you go ask a priest to forgive you?

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html#saints-IV

scriptorical reference:

really everything is said there, claiming that saint reverence is bad has no scriptorical footing and an idol as a deity put before god. Everything as is neo-primitivist ikon-clasher propaganda.

People that worship idols are excommunicated:

http://www.arkansas-catholic.org/news/article/1006

>>1638

>Everyone can learn all languages.

Yeah that would be efficient.

>But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days—oracle of the Lord. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

What does a convenient with Israel have to do with the lost?

If someone does not believe in God, what they must do to be saved, is accept the lord Jesus.

There is no other way to be saved.

>I wanted to make a thread on the Holy Inquisition

I look forward to that thread.

>So is only the bible infallibile or even only the commandments then?

No one was part of the old covenant.

The law was meant to condemn us,and it did.

It's purpose was to teach the Jews that they could not be righteous on their own.

It's not that it is wrong, its more that it no longer applies.

We are living under grace.

>>1641

>as

*else

>>1640

>And He was obviously referring to religious leaders.

nice intérpretation you got there

>And went on to say call no man your father.

How do you call your actual father then?

>Yet Catholics want to call their priests father.

>Why?

>You can use any other word.

>Call them priest, call them sir, but no, lets call >them the one thing Jesus said not to.

Hyperbole was still a tool of rethorics that was used by rabbis and also by Jesus

>Besides that only God can forgive sins.

>Why do you go ask a priest to forgive you?

God forgives sin in confession the priest can't.

>>1642

>Yeah that would be efficient.

If the bible is not to be altered it is the only way.

>What does a convenient with Israel have to do with the lost?

The law is inscribed into the heart of men =consciousness

>I look forward to that thread.

I will see if I manage to make it today.

>The law was meant to condemn us,and it did.

Was it? Jesus tried very hard to help the jews being saved by the law. They rejected it and now the old covenant is over and their rituals in vain

>It's not that it is wrong, its more that it no longer applies.

So calling no man father and showing reverence to G*d no longer applies according to which bible verse?

>>1642

>No one was part of the old covenant.

So the commandments say:

>You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself a graven image,

or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

>or that is in the earth beneath,

>or that is in the water under the earth;

you shall not bow down to them or serve them;

for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,

So you are not allowed to make paintings or take photos. I hope you do not violate this law.

>You shall not make for yourself a graven image,

or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

>or that is in the earth beneath,

how will you talk yourself out of that? Just burn your camera :^)

>>1642

>It's purpose was to teach the Jews that they could not be righteous on their own.

This lesson applies to all people, but it was originally given to the Jewish people.

PS

Romans 3:20

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 3:19-25

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

>Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

>But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

>>1643

>>And He was obviously referring to religious leaders.

>>nice intérpretation you got there

It's quite obvious Jesus was referring to religious leaders.

Do you disagree?

>How do you call your actual father then?

I personally call him Dad, but that is totally irrelevant to the context of His words.

Jesus was not talking to children who were calling their father father.

He was talking to men who were calling leaders Rabbi, and Master.

He told them not to do that, and also told them not to call men father.

Obviously in reference to someone in a leadership position.

>So calling no man father and showing reverence to G*d no longer applies according to which bible verse?

Did you forget what side you were on?

I never made those claims.

We should follow the teaching of Jesus, but not following His word does not condemn us.

What condemns us is not believing in Him.

Because all men are sinners.

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In the old covenant they only had the law.

And the law condemns all flesh.

Now the law is good to obey, but it also reveals to us our sin.

The purpose was to convict people of their sins, so that they seek God's forgiveness, and salvation.

>>1644

>So you are not allowed to make paintings or take photos. I hope you do not violate this law.

Are you trolling me?

You can take pictures, you just can't bow down to them.

I hope you aren't serious.

PS

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/graven

deeply impressed; firmly fixed.

carved; sculptured: a graven idol.

I wouldn't consider a photograph to fit into that description.

Statues clearly do.

>>1645

>Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

I agree that no one is saved by fulfilling th law.

>It's quite obvious Jesus was referring to religious leaders.

>Do you disagree?

But the text clearly says "all men" where it says "religious leaders" according to you.

Let's check the KJV too:

Matthew 23,9

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

"no man" it says here to. hm…

>Obviously in reference to someone in a leadership position.

interpretaion intesifies.png

It says "no man" and not "no man in leadership position", if you read it otherwise it is interpretation

>Did you forget what side you were on?

I am just trying to follow your logic. So if there is no bible verse that lifts laws they still aplly since man made tradition and interpretation is fallible while the bible is not.

So even if you are a sinner you would have to try to follow the law in order to repent.

>We should follow the teaching of Jesus, but not following His word does not condemn us.

>What condemns us is not believing in Him.

"sin no more" he said to the woman. So even if you are only saved by believing in him alone what denomination are you btw? you would have to try to follow the law. Or not?

If so where does it say that in the bible?

>Are you trolling me?

No. Just read the verse:

>>You shall not make for yourself a graven image,

>or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

>>or that is in the earth beneath,

You shall not make not you shall not bow to. Since we do not worship statues this is the only verse that could condemn what we do.

If you take a photo you make a graven image of something on earth. This is condemned in the commandments.

Why are we bad then and you not?

>I wouldn't consider a photograph to fit into that description.

>Statues clearly do.

So no statues then? Not of a president or of a family memeber or anyone? Also graven can mean carved and impressed printed.

Again it refers to anything on earth not only to religious symbols and it refers to making them not to bowing down in front of them.

If we follow the logic that can condemn what Catholics do till the end it makes no sense at all.

>>1647

>But the text clearly says "all men" where it says "religious leaders" according to you.

If you believe that we aren't to call any man father, including our biological father, why then do you say it is ok to call a priest father?

>>1648

I personally belief that the valid interpretation is the one of the magisterium which says that we can call a priest father too.

I just try to show that sola scriptura does not make sense unless cherrypicking.

It clearly says "no man" here.

As it says "from nothing on earth make images" in the other one.

There is no sola scripture explanation so you'll have to follow them or solascriptura is wrong.

Pick one

>>1649

>It clearly says "no man" here.

It's called reading the passage in context.

Clearly the context was that of men calling religious leaders Rabbi, and Master.

>unless cherrypicking.

That's not cherrypicking.

Cherrypicking is what your trying to do.

Which is take the one verse without the context of the verses around it.

>>1649

>I personally belief that the valid interpretation is the one of the magisterium which says that we can call a priest father too.

Why does the church think it is fine to call a priest father when Christ clearly said not to do so?

>>1653

>It's called reading the passage in context.

>

>Clearly the context was that of men calling religious leaders Rabbi, and Master.

So the bible has to be interpreted then.

If it has to be interpreted, shouldn't it be interpreted by the most suited institution that also is in apostolic succession?

Why do you think that doing that on your own will lead to better results? You are not infallible after all

So we should take care that it's done by the one that's least likely to fail.

>>1654

>Why does the church think it is fine to call a priest father when Christ clearly said not to do so?

context

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

here a shorter version

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-can-we-respond-to-the-call-no-man-father-question

and historical context

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WHYFATHR.htm

>>1655

>So the bible has to be interpreted then.

Nope, just read it, and believe what it says.

God is not the author of confusion, He wants everyone to hear His word.

He did not make it so that only a select few of scholars could know truth, He made it so that any man could know truth.

>http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

lol Thats what I said, and you disagreed with me.

It then goes on to conflate the term father with the term teacher, which Jesus never forbade.

I read the passage in context, you consider that my personal interpretation.

But when you take it out of context, mix up the terms, and consider that accurate.

I don't understand you logic.

God is not the author of confusion.

>>1655

>http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

>for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching

It then goes on to contradict that teaching saying that some men are spiritual leaders, and should be called father.

What happened to looking humbly to God as the source of all authority?

>>1657

>Nope, just read it, and believe what it says.

>>1653

>It's called reading the passage in context.

You are interpreting the bible then. You are not talking it literally.

>He did not make it so that only a select few of scholars could know truth, He made it so that any man could know truth.

No not everyone speaks aramaic and greek, every translation has to be an interpretation that's just how languages work.

Ergo: not everyone can read it.

>lol Thats what I said, and you disagreed with me.

Yes. You cannot use this argument since it is man made and fallible according to you.

Catholics can.

You have to use scriptorical evidence we have apologetics and dogma too.

>I read the passage in context, you consider that my personal interpretation.

Because it is.

How can you read something in context without interpreting it?

>I don't understand you logic.

Because it does not make sense. Sola scriptura and the bible needs no interpretation does not make sense.

>It then goes on to contradict that teaching saying that some men are spiritual leaders, and should be called father.

>What happened to looking humbly to God as the source of all authority?

It is not about being called father it's about attitude.

>>1659

>You cannot use this argument since it is man made and fallible according to you.

Just because something can be wrong does not mean it is.

God gave you common sense.

Use it.

>It is not about being called father it's about attitude.

Exactly.

And the attitude should be do not seek guidance from men, seek guidance from God.

>>1662

>God gave you common sense.

>

>Use it.

So we have to use common sense to interpret/see the context of the bible.

This can be wrong since we are fallible. There are however no precautions to be made to make failing less likely.

>And the attitude should be do not seek guidance from men, seek guidance from God.

You will have to put your trust in men if you wanna be a Christian, pardon.

Even if you are the most hardcore evangelical you have to.

The bible was made by the Catholic Church. Then it was translated by your Church. Depending on your denomination they changed the text and left parts out and interpreted the text for the first time through translation.

Now you get this bible, trusting it is the perfect and infallible one, and want to interpret the already once interpreted text according to your common sense and tell me that you put no trust in men?

>>1663

>You will have to put your trust in men if you wanna be a Christian, pardon.

No as I have said, I trust that God has preserved His word for us.

Sure men were involved. but ultimately it was God who was acting.

It seems as if you believe that we are all ignorant, and therefore we must get our truth and understanding from wise men.

Well I do not believe that.

I believe that God's word is not meant to confuse us, and that anyone who seeks the truth will find it.

Furthermore The Holy Spirit is our teacher, not some priest.

John 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

>>1668

>No as I have said, I trust that God has preserved His word for us.

>

>Sure men were involved. but ultimately it was God who was acting.

There is a multitude of different bibles, yet only one of them can be the true one.

Srsly the protestant bibles take away whole books and add words, how could they be as preserved as a Catholic or Orthodox one?

We can oly trust a single bible then and have to decide which one. What's most likely the right one?

>It seems as if you believe that we are all ignorant, and therefore we must get our truth and understanding from wise men.

It's called self awareness. I could never decide which aramaic tranlation is the original, let alone the best. I have to put my trust in someone and I will put it in the one with the most legitimacy.

>I believe that God's word is not meant to confuse us, and that anyone who seeks the truth will find it.

Again there is only one truth. Which one is it and why?

>Furthermore The Holy Spirit is our teacher, not some priest.

If we had a time machine we could fly Luther back to Jesus, so he could explain it to him instead of appointing the apostles.

>whatsoever I have said unto you

Yes all what he has said, not all minus the stuff that doesn't fit your interpretation.

I couldn't find the thread, but I remember mentioning that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Inquisitions, and you said he was a bad pope.

It struck me as odd that a Catholic would say something like that, and I started looking into it.

Anyways I found this guy who has a fairly convincing video claiming that Pope John Paul II is the antichrist.

I was just curious if you knew anything about that, or had any thing to say to that notion.

The video I was referring to is embedded.

This guys brings up some really good points, the only thing is he says the word "anti-pope", continuously throughout the video.

To the point it becomes annoying.

Anyways, I plan on watching some of his other videos.

I was just curious what another Catholic had to say about what he is saying.

>>2008

>It struck me as odd that a Catholic would say something like that

There is a multitude of bad popes

>Anyways I found this guy who has a fairly convincing video claiming that Pope John Paul II is the antichrist.

No. Since he's dead now and the last war didn't break out we know that this guy was wrong.

> was just curious if you knew anything about that,

>the only thing is he says the word "anti-pope", continuously throughout the video.

I know some of that, yes. I was very interested in that stuff a time ago, about when Francis was elected.

when I was actually thinking about becoming a sede I would also have some other videos about that, I just don't want to spread them :^)

John Paul was a perfectly valid pope though and not the anti-christ.

An anti-pope is someone claiming to be the pope while someone else is for real, or while the see of rome is empty (latin: sede vacantis)

I'm assuming that your guy here is a sedevacantist we even have a flag for them , someone who believes that the current pope is an impostor and an antipope for real.

In history there has been many anti-popes, especially in the middle ages.

>I was just curious what another Catholic had to say about what he is saying.

I have started watching it but I won't be able to finish it now. I will comment on it later, most likely in the night.

>>2024

>we even have a flag for them

That's the symbol for an empty see (= sedevakanz ).

That's why sedevacantists use it

>around 10 min

Claiming that the son of god uniting with a different person (Jesus) is the same as Jesus uniting with all of mankind

Claiming that Nestorianism is Catholicism, into the trash it goes

While Jesus is not two persons there is still hypostatic union though, we have a thread on it.

>>418

>16:30

Every man is Jesus?

No. This guy has just no clue.

>around 20 min

Completely drifted in to his own reality. Poor lad.

>30:50

This guy does that all the time.

He reads an actual Church document and then he proceeds to "explain" what it "really" means, and all that follows is something that was never said, not even indicated there.

So far 31min in. Will continue later.

>26

Reading stuff into text that isn't there

>27

The truth about man is that he is Christ?

Tard. Not part of doctrine and made up.

>To the point it becomes annoying.

His voice is annoying anyway

>>2027

Thanks.

I appreciate your input.

I also appreciate you watching that video.

I am well aware of how annoying it can be with him saying antipope at least 100 times.

You said

>No. Since he's dead now and the last war didn't break out we know that this guy was wrong.

I'm not so sure things have to be the way people expect them to be.

What makes you sure about it?

>Every man is Jesus?

It was my understanding the guy who made the video, does not believe that, but he is trying to demonstrate that John Paul II was teaching that, and that that teaching was wrong.

Thanks again for taking the time to review this information, and for your input.

>>2030

>I'm not so sure things have to be the way people expect them to be.

>

>What makes you sure about it?

The bible is quite clear on Armageddon actually.

The antichrist is a human born without soul and he will lead the fallen armies against the army of angels and righteous. He will lose, that's how the book of revelation promises to us at least.

>does not believe that, but he is trying to demonstrate that John Paul II was teaching that,

I am aware, but he does just no good job at it.

As I've said that is no doctrine and he trys to "show" it through reading between the lines.

Which means it could be true, or not. But his video does not really prove one state to be more likely.

>Thanks again for taking the time to review this information, and for your input.

Oh, I myself like a good conspiracy theory, if it is well made.

There's many better ones, even anti-catholic ones. For example the ones including the templars or the Jesuits.

>>2036

>As I've said that is no doctrine and he trys to "show" it through reading between the lines.

Yeah, He definitely applied some interpretation to what he was quoting, but overall I think he made a pretty good case against John Paul II.

>Oh, I myself like a good conspiracy theory, if it is well made.

Me too. I find it all quite interesting.

Some are so ridiculous you wonder how anyone believes it, while others can be very compelling.

>There's many better ones, even anti-catholic ones.

Yeah, I've seen better.

I was just looking for some info about John Paul II when I found that, and thought you might be able to shed some insight as to the accuracy of some of those claims, as I am not Catholic.

Would you consider anything he did as heresy?

Also, what do you think about the current pope?

>even anti-catholic ones.

It's more like anti-Catholicism.

I do think that the Roman Catholic Church is corrupted.

Even you have stated that some popes are "bad".

I don't understand how it is you can discern corruption in a man, but not in a doctrine.

Compare the example Jesus gave us that was His life here on earth, to the example the pope gives.

Jesus lived and taught humility, whereas the pope lords around as king of rome.

It's the exact opposite of what we were taught.

>For example the ones including the templars or the Jesuits.

I know little of either.

Got any links?

>>2036

>The bible is quite clear on Armageddon actually.

I felt like this topic deserved its own thread. >>2058

I look forward you hearing what you have to say.

>>2053

> but overall I think he made a pretty good case against John Paul II.

his point so far is the every man is Jesus rubbish.

Not rly convincing.

>Would you consider anything he did as heresy?

John Paul second? No. If a pope committs heresy he ceases to be pope.

Did not happen, at least as far as we know now.

>Also, what do you think about the current pope?

I won't talk bad about our pope.

But he did surprise me more than once positively, so far.

I liked Benedict very much.

>I do think that the Roman Catholic Church is corrupted.

There are people in the Church that are corrupt.

What do you expect?

The Church is made of sinful men and not Saints.

>I don't understand how it is you can discern corruption in a man, but not in a doctrine.

A doctrine is an asserted truth.

Truth is eternal and never changes.

>35:20

>Clearly indicating…

Just no.

>Jesus lived and taught humility, whereas the pope lords around as king of rome.

No, the pope doesn't lord around.

>It's the exact opposite of what we were taught.

Elaborate.

>Got any links?

Will look some up later

>37

That's what Christmas is, yes.

>37:50

No, this is not what it means, no matter how often he repeats it.

>38:40

Every baby is a manifestation of God because we were created in God's image.

Doesn't mean we are Gods though.

>>2063

>I won't talk bad about our pope.

video could interest you.

I'm through now.

His point is that the Church would claim that all humans are God.

To keep it short.:

She does not :DDD

>>2065

He says "Our first duty as Catholics is to lead souls. Our own first, to our Blessed Lord, by leading souls to the church where He is fully present."

I guess you guys are serious about that no salvation outside the church.

My bible says "whosoever", It did not say "only Catholics".

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

>whosoever believeth in him

He then goes on to talk about how criticizing the pope could damage people's faith.

Yeah, their faith in the man known as pope.

3:40 "These little ones need protecting" Really?

Wouldn't it be better to teach the truth?

If the pope is wrong, people should be lead to believe that, because the pope said it?

Yeah I pretty much disagree with the whole thing.

Well there was one thing he said that I agreed with.

We will all face Judgement.

I believe that part.

But I have a new level of appreciation of the fact you watched that other video.

Thanks again.

I didn't really know you considered the pope to be "different" in that he wasn't to be publicly rebuked.

Especially by a laymen such as myself.

>>2132

>some of his teachings

What teachings exactly?

I don't know any by heart.

>Didn't one of them say that atheists will go to heaven?

A pope cannot declare that.

>I thought you guys believed there is no salvation outside the church?

Yes.

>My charge was against the Roman Catholic Church.

>The Church is made of sinful men and not Saints.

>I disagree completely with a number of doctrines held by the church.

You are wrong then.

About which are you thinking?

>The problem is just because someone asserts something as truth, does not make it so.

If someone is the magisterium, yes.

>What do you think he meant by it?

That all men shall celebrate that they are safed, maybe?

I don't know the context.

>Wouldn't you say these are opposites?

No,both are shepherds.

>That's good to hear, but the claim was against John Paul II, and not the church.

John Paul II held a lot of incorrect opinions, however these cannot lift church law or dogma and are his very own.

>>2133

>I guess you guys are serious about that no salvation outside the church.

Yes.

>My bible says "whosoever", It did not say "only Catholics".

If you truly believed why wouldn't you join his church?

>If the pope is wrong, people should be lead to believe that, because the pope said it?

No, but it is not my task to correct him.

>I didn't really know you considered the pope to be "different" in that he wasn't to be publicly rebuked.

>Especially by a laymen such as myself.

The pope is a very special figure and an attack on him is like an attack on the church as a whole.

Very much like you are not allowed to burn a countries flag there, or like an attack on a king is an attack on the whole kingdom.

>>2246

>What teachings exactly?

Oh you know the things that were outlined in the video.

I'm not typing everything out.

>A pope cannot declare that.

So this article is a lie?

https://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/

>Yes.

See above.

>About which are you thinking?

Oh I don't care to list them.

I'm sure we'll get into the rest later.

>That all men shall celebrate that they are safed, maybe?

Maybe, then again maybe not.

>No,both are shepherds.

So you can't see a difference in the pictures?

Clearly you are blind.

>John Paul II held a lot of incorrect opinions, however these cannot lift church law or dogma and are his very own.

I agree.

Actually that was my point.

The video was from a guy who claims to be catholic.

He was not attacking the church, but rather one man.

>If you truly believed why wouldn't you join his church?

The church is corrupt.

>No, but it is not my task to correct him.

2 Corinthians 10:5

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

>The pope is a very special figure

I see your point, but I disagree.

I say let the truth come forward.

If any man teaches the wrong thing, we should do our best to defend the truth.

Especially if that man is leading millions.

>>2250

>>2250

>Oh you know the things that were outlined in the video.

I do not think that he intended to say what the guy in the video thought :^)

>The video was from a guy who claims to be catholic.

>He was not attacking the church, but rather one man.

He should rethink his values and Catholicism then.

>The church is corrupt.

All churches are to a certain degree.

>>The Church is made of sinful men and not Saints.

Why would this matter at all?

>So this article is a lie?

A pope just cannot declare that.

Maybe Francis even said it, I don't know, but if so it is invalid and carries no authority whatsoever.

Nulla salus extra ecclesiam is a dogma and therefore true. The popes personal opinion does not matter regarding it, he can't do anything about it, even if he wished to.

>>2252

>I do not think that he intended to say what the guy in the video thought :^)

Fair enough.

I disagree.

>The Church is made of sinful men and not Saints

>Why would this matter at all?

I did not say that, you did.>>2063

I was only quoting what you said.

>Maybe Francis even said it, I don't know, but if so it is invalid and carries no authority whatsoever.

Fair enough.

>>2253

Are you still here btw?

If so, we have to talk about your trip…

>>5109

————

Has someone a list how often papal infallibility was used? I think it was like a hand full of times, but don't know the exact number.

>>1654

>Why does the church think it is fine to call a priest father when Christ clearly said not to do so?

Same with the divorce thing, where Christ also clearly validates the possibility in case of adultery (or sexual immorality, which is more general, but who knows what the original word means exactly).

I understand the deal with the magisterium, but when they reach conclusions that go directly against Christ's very word, you must explain to us, or at least the magisterium must explain to us, how it is that the Son contradicts the Holy Spirit? (This is assuming you believe the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium.) How does the Spirit guide men against the Son?

That's pure modernism to me: adapting Scripture to fit your contemporary wishes despite the blatant contradiction. No one has ever been able to demonstrate that Christ did not mean what He said, or that there was some "context" to it which would enable crafty interpreters to change Christ's meaning.

I am extremely wary of people who say "Here, this is hyperbole, but there, it is not, because I (or any other group of men) have decided that this was the correct interpretation."

Reading words has nothing to do with a divine gifts, it's like recognising letters. To argue that a group of experts is more likely to reach the truth because they have the Holy Spirit in them is a thinly veiled admission for confirmation bias. It's as if one was to argue that scientists doing research on the effect of smoking would be more likely to find the truth if they were sponsored by Marlboro.

Saying that "smoking is good for your health" is on par with saying that Christ and Holy Spirit contradict each other as a magisterium-validated conclusion.

I will never understand such brazen attitudes towards the word of Christ and such lack of gravity when it comes to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a puppet that one can force to dance at the pace of one's tune.

>>1655

>So we should take care that it's done by the one that's least likely to fail.

In other words, experts who have no confirmation bias and no reason to interpret anything different from what they have under their eyes. In other words: not Catholic officials, because they have more than serious bias on them; they are not even allowed to find results that would differ from dogma. If that's not reason enough to exclude them from serious research, I don't know what is.

The whole debacle about words like "aionos" is an example of that. The Church cannot come back on it without making a fool of Itself and disavowing Itself. It's too late now, It's stuck with it.

The Bible strongly "hints" that what we call "hell" is both temporary and that you can get out of it, through penance and with the help of people's prayers, as stated in the Bible. Catholics have deduced Purgatory from this, because they believe hell is forever and finite, which was never stated by Christ, considering His choice of words (all of which were temporary, not one suggested eternity; underworlds that last forever are traditionally pagan). Because of the Church's own false assumption, It was forced to come up with Purgatory, which was not necessary if you merely listen to Christ for what He says.

Occam's Razor should have prevailed there, but faulty translations ensured that the Church would stay in error for so long that now it seems to be too late. I cannot imagine the Church coming back on such an error of dogma.

>>5160

> you must explain to us, or at least the magisterium must explain to us

The Catechism is freely available, as are all letters and edicts.

>I am extremely wary of people who say "Here, this is hyperbole, but there, it is not, because I (or any other group of men) have decided that this was the correct interpretation."

But this is reality. Are you implying that Christ or the prophets never used rethorics to make a point? Were they ididiots?

>Reading words has nothing to do with a divine gifts, it's like recognising letters.

>I have no idea about linguistics, rethorics or translation

No shame, that's why there is someone who has and to whom we need to listen in this matter, the magisterium.

> It's as if one was to argue that scientists doing research on the effect of smoking would be more likely to find the truth if they were educated in matters of body

Indeed.

>>5161

>In other words, experts who have no confirmation bias and no reason to interpret anything different from what they have under their eyes. In other words: not Catholic officials, because they have more than serious bias on them; they are not even allowed to find results that would differ from dogma. If that's not reason enough to exclude them from serious research, I don't know what is.

You can defame experience of the learned and call it bias, but it is not true.

> I cannot imagine the Church coming back on such an error of dogma.

There is not a single one error of dogma, this would be a paradoxon, you could as well start looking for dry water.

>The Bible strongly "hints" that what we call "hell" is both temporary and that you can get out of it, through penance and with the help of people's prayers, as stated in the Bible. Catholics have deduced Purgatory from this, because they believe hell is forever and finite, which was never stated by Christ, considering His choice of words (all of which were temporary, not one suggested eternity; underworlds that last forever are traditionally pagan). Because of the Church's own false assumption, It was forced to come up with Purgatory, which was not necessary if you merely listen to Christ for what He says.

This is what you want to be true, but it is not the case.

>>1668

>No as I have said, I trust that God has preserved His word for us.

You and Discipulus both believe God is somehow involved in either the Bible or the reading of it. I personally don't believe in either, not to any pragmatic degree. I'll believe it may have been "inspired", but no more than a poet or musician may be, meaning that it is not a token of accuracy.

>>1668

>John 14:26

>But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Holy Spirit, however, is not the magisterium. That is a personal, individual matter. Christ is not saying the Holy Spirit will descend upon Rome to teach us how it is done, but rather, that the Holy Spirit will come to us individually, to guide us, as invididuals, not in matters of Church administration and dogma.

>There is a multitude of different bibles, yet only one of them can be the true one.

This is one of the most uneducated statements I have ever read about the Bible. The process of translating can be done in different ways and yet be valid. Style comes into play as well, and whether you use a more literary and outdated style, or a more casual and modern, you can still convey the same content; nobody would argue that one of them is "the right one" and the other "the wrong one". Things are far from black and white when it comes to translation, exegis, interpretation, etc.

As to the books removed by Protestants, they are book that had been considered noncanonical by their original owners, the Jews, and are titled "deuterocanonical" because of that.

>I could never decide which aramaic tranlation is the original, let alone the best. I have to put my trust in someone and I will put it in the one with the most legitimacy.

And for some illogical reason, you will sooner trust people who are invested with a mission to never deviate from dogma, no matter reality shows them, rather than neutral experts. You act as if language was some sort of mysterious sorcery which required expert wizards, when it is all fairly mechanical despite the choices to be made: translating is betraying, by necessity, so you will always have to choose whether to sacrifice rhyme for meaning, or meaning for rhyme, so on and so forth, and you'd rather have biased people do the sacrificing. This shows how much you care for Christ's actual words. You hide behind your magisterium, assuming that some divine right makes them infallible in their conclusions, when it's the exact opposite: it makes them biased and prevents them from seeing straight. Much like biologists who may find "racial" differences will not be able to publish their findings easily, those experts are dogmatically prevented from finding anything contrary to dogma.

This is not the way of truth, and when conclusions go against Christ, any Christian should grow extremely wary, for we have been warned often about future false prophets and the lies and manipulations of those who seek to distort divine revelation for their own advantages. Christ allowed divorce, and it was allowed for centuries, and then the Church forbade it to prevent priestly belongings to go to the priest's family, and go to the Church instead. How does material greed win against Christ's very own word? How can anyone defend such a thing?

>>5163

>You and Discipulus both believe God is somehow involved in either the Bible or the reading of it. I personally don't believe in either, not to any pragmatic degree

Do you believe that Jesus is God?

>, but rather

This is your very own interpretation that you make up because you want it to be true. It does not allign with tradition or teaching.

>This is one of the most uneducated statements I have ever read about the Bible.

Is it? Two different things are not the same.

>considered noncanonical by their original owners, the Jews,

Yeah, the pharisees seem to be a dandy source of morals.

>And for some illogical reason, you will sooner trust people who are invested with a mission to never deviate from dogma, no matter reality shows them, rather than neutral experts.

People that rely on 2000years of tradition of interpretation and apologetics are better suited than some "scientist" that wants to "revolutionise" the teaching and make himself famous.

This is how it has always been, this is how the apostles did it, and their successors which are we.

>Christ allowed divorce, and it was allowed for centuries, and then the Church forbade it to prevent priestly belongings to go to the priest's family

What are you even talking about? This sentence does not make sense.

>>5163

>>5163

>God is not involved in the Bible

Seriously, why do you call yourself Christian or at least wear the flag?

Even protestants acknowledge the bible, what is left Christian if you abolish it too?

>You act as if language was some sort of mysterious sorcery which required expert wizards, when it is all fairly mechanical despite the choices to be made

It is some serious sorcery that we cannot fully understand.

>>2132

>I thought you guys believed there is no salvation outside the church?

>Also it seems to me he is teaching salvation based on works.

>"do good: we will meet one another there"

>i.e. do good works, and you will be saved.

What the "Church" is varies greatly depending on your personal mood. To some, it is the official Catholic Church. If your name is registered there, you belong to the Church. To others, the "Church" isn't decided upon by mere mortals, but God, and God alone. In this, even some atheist from China may belong to the "Church" if God chooses so, according to His own judgement of that person, based on that person's thoughts, deeds, etc. No mortal can know what God chooses and decides on such questions, and that is the official position of the Catholic Church as explained in the CCC.

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation" (847)

Having seen a picture of Jesus on the Internet or come across a few Christians, or Christian texts, does not constitute "knowing Christ", by the way, as some of the more radical Catholics like to think. Knowing Christ is when you really know Christ, and when you really know Christ, you seldom leave Him afterwards.

Here you have the official Church position, and yes, it is quite "Universalist" since it suggests everyone can reach salvation "outside" the Church, as understood to mean "not as an officially registered Catholic".

That is the position of the Church, though not of many Catholics, who, for reasons unknown, will stand against the conclusions of the magisterium, which proves to everyone that those Catholics who continuously profess eternal faith in what they consider to be the Holy Spirit acting on earth will now choose not to follow It anymore, simply it because it differs from their own personal preferences, a thing they accuse everyone else of doing, but are now caught doing themselves. Instead of admitting that they have always chosen by preferences, and not by humility and discipline and faith, they will now argue that the CCC is some sort of heresy.

Too easy.

"It's dogma when I agree, it's not when I don't."

Either trust the Church fully, based on the idea that the Holy Spirit leads it and that the Church cannot err, or do not, but one cannot have it both ways and declare that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit when it does what you like and then that it isn't when it does what you dislike.

That would be hypocrisy, literally: a lack of critical thinking, a nontruth. One cannot switch positions by dancing like the devil, from one foot to the other, whenever circumstances change. That is not the way of truth.

>>2246

>A pope cannot declare that.

"All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." (22)

What this means is that an atheist, who considers himself one, but nevertheless seeks God unconsciously, by trying to do good, and questioning religions, may still be eligible for salvation, if God sees him fit for it.

In other words, an atheist is not always an atheist. It remains to be seen whether Catholics agree with their own CCC. I do tend to see massive dissent between the two, especially online where ill-intentioned believers are more likely to muster the courage to speak their desire for hellfire for all those who think differently and live a different faith. Nevertheless, the CCC is authoritative while such Catholics are not. Let no one forget.

A mere Catholic with no ranking in the Church cannot argue about dogma. This is ironic considering that such people do all the time, while not allowing others to do the same, but having no legimity themselves, by their own admission. You can't say "only the magisterium can know" and then disagree with them yourselves. That is not a coherent position.

>>2246

>If you truly believed why wouldn't you join his church?

If you believe that "joining His Church" is about registering to the Catholic Church, you are sorely mistaken, even according to the Catholic Church itself. Again, coherence is required to have a credible position. You cannot keep juggling with your Church the way you do: either it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and we can trust its word, or it isn't and all of your other beliefs based on this idea must be relinquished too. You cannot have it both ways. Trust your Church, or do not, but do not pick your preferences with it.

>>5167

>Here you have the official Church position, and yes, it is quite "Universalist" since it suggests everyone can reach salvation "outside" the Church, as understood to mean "not as an officially registered Catholic".

This is one way of reading it. We can determine that it is the wrong way because it has to fit in with dogma, one of the dogmas being that no one reaches salvation outside of the Church.

>>5168

> and then disagree with them yourselves

No one here does that. But you believe that language is a clear and easy topic, so you reach this conclusion.

There is a right way of reading things, ONE, and an infinite amount of wrong ways of reading it.

>>5169

>If you believe that "joining His Church" is about registering to the Catholic Church, you are sorely mistaken, even according to the Catholic Church itself.

This is not true, you are a part of the Catholic Church or not. There are people that are part of it unknowingly, by grace alone, but they are part of the Church and chosen for this, and we have no idea how many these are.

>>5162

>The Catechism is freely available, as are all letters and edicts.

If you had a readily available response, you would have given it. The reason why you preferred to act arrogantly instead of merely enlightening us is yours and yours alone. I do not claim to fathom your soul, but if that is how you treat your neighbour, I would suggest more self-examination.

> Are you implying that Christ or the prophets never used rethorics to make a point?

That is not the point I was making. There is great temptation for some to choose when something is a hyperbole and when it is not. And that choice is based on preferences, that is what I warned of.

>No shame, that's why there is someone who has and to whom we need to listen in this matter, the magisterium.

You keep saying this, but you do not listen to the magisterium when it declares points you dislike. And it remains to be explained, by yourself, this time, why you would rather follow the magisterium than Christ Himself on matters such as divorce, which you avoid. I do not believe that the Son and the Holy Spirit can hold contradictory positions. You do, and I would like to know why.

since the pope can decree anything outside of mainstream catholicism that would make his invoking useless.

why have it at all?

>>5162

>You can defame experience of the learned and call it bias, but it is not true.

I did not such thing. The bias is there because, should they find anything contradictory to dogma, they would not be allowed, by definition, to go against dogma. You may believe that no situation like this could ever happen, also by definition, but you don't seem to realise that the very fact that nobody from the Church could ever go against dogma ensures this. In other words, the Church ensures dogma are respected, not reality and facts.

Do not further attempt to twist my own words and create attacks I have never intended; here too, you should question yourself on your motives when you do this. It should be OK not to know something or other through humility. It is certainly better than to attempt the forgery of making me say things I have never said.

>>5162

>There is not a single one error of dogma

Since the list of dogmas has not been established by the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, one can safely reject this claim.

>>5162

>This is what you want to be true, but it is not the case.

This is a statement. There is no argument here. I have offered arguments, many, and you do not care to entertain a single one of them on this issue. Telling me, without any arguments of any sort, that I "want this to be true", ignoring all the evidence I have offered, is simple lack of respect. I have shown that the more contrived conclusion of the two was that of the Catholic Church, which even has to go against accurate translations to have its contrived reasoning make sense. You offered nothing in return, nothing to back up why a simpler conclusion could not be the truth. It does not seem logical to you to assume that had there been a Purgatory, Christ, or anyone else, would have said something about it. But there is nothing there that cannot be attributed to "hell" instead. The only element that stands in the way of this interpretation is another Catholic dogma, also not present in Scripture and tradition for many centuries: the eternity of "hell", which I write in quotes because there is not merely one word for it in Scripture, but many, and none implies eternity, as I have stated before.

In other words, the RCC has made up a dogma and created a whole metaphysical realm to enable itself to counter that dogma. Meanwhile, by just listening to Christ, you realise that both are the constructions of men.

Christ walked in straight lines, going from A to B in the simplest, most efficient way. Your Church goes from A to Be by going to C and Z and H and forcing itself to dodge obstacles it itself put forth.

I doubt your opinion will ever change, however. You speak the same way that fanatics do, never doubting anything that may alter their worldview. Truth matters less to you than blind rigidity to a code of beliefs you have accepted.

There is no real faith in you if there is no faith in truth.

>>5164

>Do you believe that Jesus is God?

I will answer your posts but this may be the last of me that you see. I came here to test your community, but what I see does not please me: dishonest ways of arguing (mostly by ignoring problematic points), countless ad hominems (even if you know that other person well, ad hominems are not arguments; you don't know me and it did not prevent you from grasping at every opportunity to use an ad hominem instead of responding to points), and arrogance and mockery. I found you to be a disagreable person and I wonder where you apply Christianity in treating your neighbour, whether he be Christian or not. I pray to God that He did not put you on a mission to preach His word, because I do not expect you to be very successful in such a mission. I hope, instead, that you do humanitarian work.

To answer your question, yes, of course I believe Jesus is God. The Second Person incarnate, fully human yet fully God.

>This is your very own interpretation that you make up because you want it to be true. It does not allign with tradition or teaching.

Your exclusive argument is "Tradition says otherwise." Even when it doesn't. Scripture is tradition, older tradition, and you freel choose which tradition you would rather follow, even when it flies against the face of Christ. I am amazed by your behaviour.

>the pharisees seem to be a dandy source of morals.

I asked you, politely, to cease putting words in my mouth or twisting my sentences to something that you prefer, much the same way your Church does with Christ. The Old Testament belongs to the Jews. To suggest that all Jews were Pharisees, and that this is what I meant, is either impressive lack of reading comprehension on your part, or, as I suspect, it is deceit. How many times will you act in such dishonest ways before asking yourself if this is a correct and truthful manner in which to speak for God? I certainly believe that any Christian who argues about religious matters does so out of conviction, and therefore, I ask you: why do you behave in such dishonest ways?

>People that rely on 2000years of tradition of interpretation and apologetics are better suited than some "scientist" that wants to "revolutionise" the teaching and make himself famous.

I have never used the word "scientist". It is not "scientists" who study texts. Once again, do not put words in my mouth. if you would rather speak my words instead of me, I will let you do so on your own.

When tradition feeds off of the previous tradition, and so on and so forth, as in Chinese Whispers, one must take secure footing in Scripture, since Scripture is tradition solidified, and since dogma must not change, Scripture is a safer base and foundation than everything that came afterwards. Again, here, we have you dancing from one position to another, based on what you prefer. I have given up bringing up specific points because you simply ignore them.

>What are you even talking about? This sentence does not make sense.

I am certain that your intellectual abilities are sufficient to understand this simple sentence:

"Christ allowed divorce, and it was allowed for centuries, and then the Church forbade it to prevent priestly belongings to go to the priest's family"

But I will rephrase for your convienence.

Christ allowed divorce, as Moses did before Him. For centuries, priests could marry, as the Apostles could (and the Apostles were the ones Christ was talking to when He said divorce was allowed, and they were the first priests), and then the Church decided, against Christ, that marriage for them was no longer allowed, and the Church chose this solely for material greed, to prevent heritage, to keep a priest's possession. Mammon or God, choose wisely.

>>5165

>Seriously, why do you call yourself Christian or at least wear the flag?

I will no longer respond to ad hominems. Should you happen to have an argument, I will handle it, but personal accusations bring nothing forth.

The reason why I believe this is because I refuse to blame human error on my Lord. That is blasphemy to me and I refuse to indulge in such insults to God. My position is easily explained and easily understood.

I refuse to blame God for having two contradictory creation stories in Genesis, or four different versions of Christ's last words on the Cross. This, I do not blame God for, but humans and their fallibility. If you prefer to assume that Our Lord made mistakes or lied to us, that is up to you, but that is not an accusation I take lightly, and I refuse to accuse my Lord of either of these.

>>5166

>It is some serious sorcery that we cannot fully understand.

It is not. Language is not sorcery. Semantics is not magic. Moreover, the level at which mistakes are made is far from being sophisticated. Here is an example:

>The cat slept for 5 hours.

>The cat slept for ever.

There is nothing magical about getting this translation wrong. The difference is enormous and astoundingly easy to spot and correct. Those who prefer human dogmas over the word of Christ will choose whatever their human organisation has chosen for them. Honest Christians will simply choose Christ.

>>5170

>We can determine that it is the wrong way because it has to fit in with dogma,

This error may cost you a lot. Human dogmas should not be your compass in earthly life. Christ should be. Do not conflate the two, especially when they differ, and they do.

>no one reaches salvation outside of the Church.

Saying this is saying nothing, as the CCC definition of what that means proves. If we have adjustable definitions of what the "Church" means, it means nothing at all. Universalists and Catholics can both rely on this definition to fit their preferences.

> But you believe that language is a clear and easy topic, so you reach this conclusion.

There is a difference between suggesting that languages aren't sorcery and suggesting that they are clear and simple. Electronics is not magic, but it is not simple. The same goes for advanced physics or any science, or law. Magic is not the opposite of simple, complexity is not a synonym for magic.

This yet another dishonest way of arguing and I condemn it.

>There is a right way of reading things, ONE, and an infinite amount of wrong ways of reading it.

If there was, literature the world over would be impoverished. There are many ways to read poetic texts, and others, and many of the texts in Scripture are to be read on several levels, not because they are sorcery or magic, but because their authors were the most literatute of their civilisations and their skills went well beyond hyperboles and metaphors. Being aware of this rich culture and intelligence is not a sin. Education is not the enemy of Christianity, and that is something the Catholic Church has always believed; it has always placed great emphasis on education, and I have always respect that about it.

>>5171

>This is not true, you are a part of the Catholic Church or not.

The RCC itself says that only God knows this, not you, not any mortal man.

>There are people that are part of it unknowingly, by grace alone, but they are part of the Church and chosen for this, and we have no idea how many these are.

Then you do not disagree with anything I have said. God does not need the RCC's permission to consider someone part of His Church. Acquire more humility, especially when it comes to Our Lord, Who is under no obligation to follow your rules and ideas.

And this will be my last post for now.

I was told that this community was small but loving, like a family, and all I find is arguing, and not in the best of ways, judging by all the angry ad hominems that are thrown around.

I would suggest that if you are not secure with your own beliefs that you should stay away from doctrinal arguments. That way you would spare yourself any anguish this may cause you, and you would not inflict ad hominems and strawmen on anyone, which generates nothing but frustration and anger, as I have seen in other threads (a sentiment I can fully understand merely from this thread myself).

I have not decided yet if I will return or not. I assume I have not seen all of your members and I hope there is more variety than what I have seen today.

I am yet to feel Christian love, though. There is no Christian community without love, of that you can be sure. It is the surest way to know whether God is among you or not. For without love, you are nothing.

May God bless your small community and amend your arrogant ways by teaching you patience and love, so that even if the people you speak to disagree, they may still be convinced by the faith in you, and the love that you have, from God. Do no further insult this love by needless pride, do not let your ego overcome your faith and love, do not let arguments win you over. Always love.

Always love.

Humility is when a man has doubts about himself, about himself and his actions, dounting the truth was not and will never be humility, it is giving in to evil out of fear.

You made assumptions about the Church, so I told you how things are, and in a hierarchy, like the Church, this will just be a stating of facts and nothing else.

This is why there can neither be doubt nor this false "humility" you want to have. It is inappropriate.

When you belecture me and judge me on my personal morals here

>>5184

This is a whole different level. Here humility would be appropriate.

>>5172

>If you had a readily available response, you would have given it.

I have given a response, The claim was that the magisterium does not give reason for their decisions, which is not true.

>That is not the point I was making. There is great temptation for some to choose when something is a hyperbole and when it is not. And that choice is based on preferences, that is what I warned of.

And a choice that has to be made. In the RCC this is made by the magisterium, which has undeniable advances, like unity, professionality and independence.

>You keep saying this, but you do not listen to the magisterium when it declares points you dislike.

This is just made up. I have explained that your interpretation has to be necessarily wrong because it contradicts dogma.

>>5176

>I did not such thing. The bias is there because, should they find anything contradictory to dogma, they would not be allowed, by definition, to go against dogma.

Or it would be assesed that it never was dogma in the first place, which excommunicated the pope declaring it. But there would have to be a reasoning for this.

>Do not further attempt to twist my own words and create attacks I have never intended; here too, you should question yourself on your motives when you do this. It should be OK not to know something or other through humility. It is certainly better than to attempt the forgery of making me say things I have never said.

I have never twisted your words here, you also still hold on to this claim, which you may, but this doesn't make me a liar.

>>5177

> established by the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit,

The Holy Spirit ensures the validity of it, so the claim is fine.

>This is a statement. There is no argument here.

Lets see:

> I have offered arguments, many, and you do not care to entertain a single one of them on this issue

And I called them untrue. There is no need to further investigate personal bible interpretations of each and every individual when it is already declared. That hell is infinite and purgatory a part of heaven ie.

>In other words, the RCC has made up a dogma and created a whole metaphysical realm to enable itself to counter that dogma. Meanwhile, by just listening to Christ, you realise that both are the constructions of men.

Out of thin air. "listening to Christ" is also nice, because all you know about Christ you know from the bible at least from the parts that fit your beliefs which has its authority from the Church.

It just does not work out.

>Christ walked in straight lines, going from A to B in the simplest, most efficient way. Your Church goes from A to Be by going to C and Z and H and forcing itself to dodge obstacles it itself put forth.

Yes, when there pass a few thousand years a lot of texts add up and things get more detailed and complicated than in 33.

>There is no real faith in you if there is no faith in truth.

I do not deny the truth.

>fanatic

Is this meant to be an insult?

>>5179

>I will answer your posts but this may be the last of me that you see. I came here to test your community, but what I see does not please me: dishonest ways of arguing (mostly by ignoring problematic points), countless ad hominems (even if you know that other person well, ad hominems are not arguments; you don't know me and it did not prevent you from grasping at every opportunity to use an ad hominem instead of responding to points), and arrogance and mockery. I found you to be a disagreable person and I wonder where you apply Christianity in treating your neighbour, whether he be Christian or not. I pray to God that He did not put you on a mission to preach His word, because I do not expect you to be very successful in such a mission. I hope, instead, that you do humanitarian work.

It is not my fault if you mistake me asking questions for me attacking you.

I wanted to point out that Jesus never doubted the scripture and used it, for which I need to know if Jesus is an authority / God to you. Which does not have to be the case.

>The Old Testament belongs to the Jews. To suggest that all Jews were Pharisees, and that this is what I meant, is either impressive lack of reading comprehension on your par

The OT belongs to Christianity now and what jews do with it does not matter anymore.

At Luther's time all jews left were pharisees khazars set aside

> why do you behave in such dishonest ways?

I have yet to see were I was dishonest. Possibly one can interpret my posts in me being dishonest, but it is not how it was meant to be.

>I have never used the word "scientist".

Irrelevant, it is scientists who study texts.

>It is not "scientists" who study texts.

It is, in order to be a linguist you have to attend a university.

> I have given up bringing up specific points because you simply ignore them.

Indeed, I did. And mentioned that it easily can be looked up. I do not know everything by heart and would just have to do it too in order to answer.

Which does not matter for Catholicism, we just have to know the answer, not the reasoning, and if we are interested we can look it up.

>I am certain that your intellectual abilities are sufficient to understand this simple sentence:

>he Church chose this solely for material greed

>Mammon or God, choose wisely.

It does not take me wonders that I did not answer and won't. I still have to learn from your humility I guess.

>>5180

>I will no longer respond to ad hominems. Should you happen to have an argument, I will handle it, but personal accusations bring nothing forth.

This was a question, not an accusation. And a good question to be honest. If there is someone that neither trusts in the Church and not even in the bible the question of their Christianity may come up. Nothing exceptional, I also see no attack here.

>This, I do not blame God for, but humans and their fallibility.

You think the council that compromised the bible did not realise these exact things? They just "missed" the different endings of the gospel? No, they are there intentionally.

>>5181

>It is not. Language is not sorcery. Semantics is not magic.

This is where humiity should come in.

Yes, to know or not to know the exact meanings of ancient texts and properly translate them is an act comparable to sorcery, because it is essentially impossible. Every translation is an interpretation.

>The cat slept for 5 hours.

>The cat slept for ever.

How do you know that 5 means literally 5 and is not just symbolic? How that cat means cat and is not just a metaphor etcetc

>This error may cost you a lot. Human dogmas should not be your compass in earthly life. Christ should be. Do not conflate the two, especially when they differ, and they do.

The Church is the earthly body of Christ, claiming that they two differ is paradox.

>Saying this is saying nothing, as the CCC definition of what that means proves.

I have explained that your interpretation is wrong before.

>>5183

>The RCC itself says that only God knows this, not you, not any mortal man.

This does not contradict my statement.

>>5184

You are free to stay or to leave. If you stay you need to deal with opposing views however. I for instance never threatened to leave although I feel at least as attacked as you.

I also never intended to attack you at all, I just have no reason for this.

>>5192

>It is, in order to be a linguist you have to attend a university.

So everyone who goes to university is a scientist? Anyone who studies English literature is now a scientist? Ridiculous.

>>5216

This is how I'd use the word, yes.

Why shouldn't they be?

>>5192

>Yes, to know or not to know the exact meanings of ancient texts and properly translate them is an act comparable to sorcery, because it is essentially impossible. Every translation is an interpretation.

This is ignoring the fact that experts can speak these languages on a first language basis. There is no mystery to them and they can explain what any text means in detail. Translations can't afford to lecture us about what every word's specific connotations and various denotations (meanings, or semes), but the translator can. In that, there is nothing mysterious about any of the original languages used in the Bible.

>>5219

> Translations can't afford to lecture us about what every word's specific connotations and various denotations (meanings, or semes), but the translator can.

I doubt this. How can we know for sure that we know each and every meaning of every word of a dead language?

How can we be sure that what we literally translate is not a common metaphor of the time, or an in-joke or something?

> there is nothing mysterious about any of the original languages used in the Bible.

Language in itself is a mystery, even modern languages.

Just observe it ie:

Cripple was perfectly fine to use like 25 years ago, then it became "offensive" and was replaced with disabled, which will eventually be replaced and on and on

Or gay, that in the last century still meant happy and not homo, we just cannot be sure that each of this subtle changes was passed on, in a book as long as the bible we have to miss something, if we go by natural means.

>>5218

Because we use the word "scientist" for those who study hard sciences, not the humanities. Otherwise, your use of the word can mean anything whatsoever. Science means knowledge, everyone knows something, should we all call ourselves scientists? If so, there would be no point in even having the word "scientist".

>>5221

>I doubt this. How can we know for sure that we know each and every meaning of every word of a dead language?

Are you serious? You read the rest of the production of that time and you compare. When you have over 1500 instances of a single word (and in fact, you have much more than that), you can easily make a list of the various meanings it has according to the very people who use the term.

If you have a hundred authors who use the word "aionos", for instance, to mean these various meanings:

>cycle

>lifetime

>3 years

>20 years

>a long time

>a phase

And that nobody uses the term to mean anything other than these meanings, out of hundreds of authors and thousands of occurences of the word, you can be pretty definite about what the word can mean. In this case, the word never once means "eternal" or "forever", yet it is the chosen word to translate "aionos" in our Bible. The only reason why this was chosen instead of what the word actually means is dogma and the doctrine of the RCC about what we have translated as "hell", but as you can see, that is not a reason. This is a translation error and is very easily proven to be one.

>>5226

> not the humanities.

What are they called then?

>>5228

>Are you serious? You read the rest of the production of that time and you compare

I doubt that this would even work today were we have much more literature about a higher variety of things. Even today there will be a word used differently in a certain dialect or anything according to that.

>>5221

>Language in itself is a mystery, even modern languages.

Absolutely untrue. The origin of language in general is necessarily mysterious since we have no trace of how it developed, but other than that there is no mystery. It only is a matter of knowledge. Modern languages are less mysterious than all others because we have traces going back thousands of years.

>Cripple was perfectly fine to use like 25 years ago, then it became "offensive" and was replaced with disabled, which will eventually be replaced and on and on

Absolutely nothing mysterious about semantic variations. Political correctness makes neutral words offensive. "Nigger" comes from "negro" which is Latin for "black" and is literally just the name of the colour, originally. The way words are used matters a lot, which we call connotation, as opposed to denotation, which is its dictionary definition and meaning. Again, no mystery there.

>Or gay, that in the last century still meant happy and not homo, we just cannot be sure that each of this subtle changes was passed on, in a book as long as the bible we have to miss something, if we go by natural means.

Again, this is some of the simplest mechanics of language to understand.

Languages used to change much more, and more radically, before we had a written language, which stabilised everything. This isn't mysterious or magical, but this shows why we need to have experts tell us when words have changed their meaning and implications (or denotation and connotation). "Lust" is one such word. Back in 17th century, it merely meant "to covet", whereas in 21st century English, people will only think of this word as highly sexualised. Recourse to the original tongue shows that Christ, when using the word we translate by "lust", uses the same word we translate by "covet" in the Ten Commandments.

There is no need of Holy Spirit to go and compare the manuscripts to see that the word is the same in the Ten Commandments and the Gospel. Even a child can recognise the letters as being the same. Language is not as mysterious as you want it to be.

>>5228

>If you have a hundred authors who use the word "aionos", for instance, to mean these various meanings:

And day means only a the kown period of 24 hours, yet the earth was not created in 168 hours.

>ut other than that there is no mystery. It only is a matter of knowledge.

We do not know the roots of each and every word for instance.

> The way words are used matters a lot, which we call connotation, as opposed to denotation, which is its dictionary definition and meaning. Again, no mystery there.

The mystery is right in front of you, because we can barely know all connotations, they are especially hard to transport in written form.

It is like we only have a rudimentary idea what music was like 2500 years ago, we can kinda tell, but not go 100% into all details.

>this shows why we need to have experts tell us when words have changed their meaning and implications

But they cannot do this infallibly.

In the medieval era people thought that the title Augustus meant "one who increases (the empire)" . They had 1A linguists and Latin is one of the dead languages with the most accounts. Yet they still were mistaken it for a substantivised form of "augere", it just happens.

The idea that we cannot fail and translation and knowledge seems highly consequential to me.

>>5232

>And day means only a the kown period of 24 hours, yet the earth was not created in 168 hours.

That is where your lack of knowledge about the original language proves a fatal flaw. The word we translate by "day" does not mean "day" but something closer to "cycle". A cycle doesn't have a specific time attributed to it, but it does involve that it has a beginning and an end, much like the words Christ uses to talk about "hell", finite terms.

Here's an interest exegesis about that exact word we translated by "day":

While Sefer HaTemunah sees the world as existing in the second cycle, others[8] say it is in the seventh cycle.[1] If so, Adam was created when the universe was 42,000 years old, and six worlds were created and destroyed before the creation of Adam.[1] This thesis was laid out by Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, a 13th-century Kabbalist, who said that when calculating the age of the universe, one must use divine years rather than physical years.

"I, the insignificant Yitzchak of Akko, have seen fit to write a great mystery that should be kept very well hidden. One of God's days is a thousand years, as it says, "For a thousand years are in Your eyes as a fleeting yesterday." Since one of our years is 365 ¼ days, a year on High is 365,250 our years.[9] ”

By interpreting the texts of Sefer HaTemunah and the Midrash, Isaac ben Samuel of Acre calculated the age of the universe to be 15,340,500,000 years old."

>>5232

>We do not know the roots of each and every word for instance.

Untrue. For the vast majority of words in modern languages, we do know their origins, up to a point, naturally. We know the roots. This is especially true for English, where few words have mysterious origins. Not that having mysterious origins makes the word mysterious, far from that. To connect the two is incorrect.

>The mystery is right in front of you, because we can barely know all connotations, they are especially hard to transport in written form.

That is not true. The way you learn a language is the same process used by linguists and historians to know about connotations. Imagine you learn a language and are presented with two words that share a denotation, but have a sharply different connotation, it won't take you long to understand the difference. The words both mean a woman who sells sexual services in exchange of money:

>prostitute

>whore

The connotations vary, but by reading both words in enough situations, you will understand that one is more technical than the other. One will be used by serious politicians discussing an issue while the other will more often be used by informal people using it as a swear word. Doing this is not difficult, especially for experts who have hundreds of texts to compare with.

>It is like we only have a rudimentary idea what music was like 2500 years ago, we can kinda tell, but not go 100% into all details.

This is true, but for everything we have texts for, it is largely untrue.

For instance, we know that the Greek used in the New Testament was low-brow Greek because contemporary Greek authors used to mock it for being so simple and base; it turned out that the Greek used for the Bible was simply the Greek language that the people spoke; it gave us many insights on how people actually spoke, and we can know so by comparing with various other Greek texts of the same period, both literary and more popular texts.

>But they cannot do this infallibly.

Their research can show very definite evidence of what a word means. When a word means a set of 5 to 6 meanings in all 5000 occurrences where we have found it, it is extremely unlikely that a popular form of Greek would use an insanely specific meaning for it. NT Greek is simple, intended to be understood by pesants, so the simplest meaning of a word would always be prioritised and certainly no nonexistent meaning of the word would be used.

>>5232

>The idea that we cannot fail and translation and knowledge seems highly consequential to me.

Yet you don't seem to have a problem with your version of the Bible even when shown evidence that it was mistranslated, how come?

You can fail translating, especially if your translation dates back a few centuries and didn't possess all the manuscripts we possess today. Roman scholars failed in this regard because they had very little to go by compared to today. Today we have an amazing series of texts from biblical and Christical times and we can compare and understand more than we ever could. We can understand what Christ meant with more clarity than Roman scholars could so many centuries ago.

It's a Christian tragedy that we refuse to re-evaluate the translations we use today. It is probably the Church's gravest sin too, akin to bearing false witness with regards to God's word. There is no way than the Vatican linguists are not aware of these things.

>>5232

I wonder why the Catholics of this board never have anything to offer against this "aionos" nonsense…

Do you guys fear something?

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/31003E.html

This page shows that aionos means "eternal" as suggested by our Catholic translation, and most translations, in fact.

>>5234

>>5235

>>5236

We can have really good translations, I know that, but no infallible perfect 100% uber super one, this I am sure of.

If we want that this can not be achieved by us, but only by the Holy Spirit.

>>5237

>Do you guys fear something?

We are just not that many, and if it happens that there is a topic that does not really interest me like ancient Greek atm at least it possibly remains.

>This page shows that aionos means "eternal" as suggested by our Catholic translation, and most translations, in fact.

In German we adopted it also with the meaning of eternity

http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Aeon

So I was fairly sure that it is right anyway, but if a Catholic flag says something it is often taken as the "Catholic" position, so I rather keep quiet when in doubt

>this thread

Looks like a lively discussion. Seems like it is too far gone for me to get involved much though (I'm not reading all this stuff yo). Anglicans never fit in well with Protestant vs Catholic stuff anyway.

>>5241

>We can have really good translations

We can have amazing translations but they are all likely flawed in some way. However, we must not get lost in semantics. Most differences are minor (those which are not will or have been eliminated). Small differences don't matter, as long as we follow the message.

>>5267

Nice to see an Anglican here. You're the first I see. Keep in mind that Catholics see Anglicans as Protestants for all intents and purposes, but none of that should prevent you from sharing. Soon or later you'll run into a Catholic telling you you're wrong, we've all been there and there's no avoiding it.

I often hear that Anglicanism is the best of Catholicism plus the best of Protestantism; how would you present your denomination yourself?

>>5276

>I often hear that Anglicanism is the best of Catholicism plus the best of Protestantism

I wouldn't go that far but what I like about Anglicanism is that it gives your the feeling of tradition and continuity, a feeling of being a in a 'proper' church while simultaneously allowing you the liberty of your own conscience and independence in matters of faith. Churches are all run quite freely with room for the vicar/friar/pastor to be more liberal with his practice.

Trust the fathers but don't let them dominate you, is a great way of viewing our domination.

This has caused issues though. The Episcopal Church (American Anglicans) recently removed the mention of man and woman from their marriage sacrament which in my view is much, much too far.

>>5267

> Small differences don't matter, as long as we follow the message.

I do not think so. If we assume that there is an infallible bible then this just cannot be true.

>I often hear that Anglicanism is the best of Catholicism plus the best of Protestantism

It's more like the other way round. They took the least important stuff from Catholicism superficial traditions andd poisenous protestant theology.

That's also why the Anglican Church will die soon. At least in Britain it is dead on its feet.

>>5294

> simultaneously allowing you the liberty of your own conscience and independence in matters of faith. Churches are all run quite freely with room for the vicar/friar/pastor to be more liberal with his practice.

This is the problem.

>This has caused issues though. The Episcopal Church (American Anglicans) recently removed the mention of man and woman from their marriage sacrament which in my view is much, much too far.

Why should it be too far? Just get more liberal ;^)

>>5347

>I do not think so. If we assume that there is an infallible bible then this just cannot be true.

Why does the idea of there being an infallible bible make the small differences any larger exactly?

I have

>At least in Britain it is dead on its feet.

Only someone very ignorant of our church believes this. Although we are struggling, we are hardly dead/dying.

I don't get why so many people on 8chan seem happy with this state of affairs. Most people who leave our church become irreligious.

>This is the problem.

And here comes the ultimately unreconcilable difference between our faith. Nothing can solve it.

>>5352

I would like to start an Anglican general to ask certain questions about your faith, and have others give their insight into the matter as well.

Would you participate in it, should I do that, or you might like to start it yourself?

>>5355

I was thinking much the same, I will do it now. I am going to make a detailed OP post, so it might take me a little while

>>5352

>I have

Yes?

>Only someone very ignorant of our church believes this. Although we are struggling, we are hardly dead/dying.

Desubong showed me some article once that essentially said that the Anglicans will be gone in England in 2050 at the current rate.

>I don't get why so many people on 8chan seem happy with this state of affairs. Most people who leave our church become irreligious.

That's the problem with heresy, all will end like that. That's why it has to be fought, because we already know the end.

>And here comes the ultimately unreconcilable difference between our faith. Nothing can solve it.

This leaves me very sad indeed.

>>5374

>I'm confused, so you say we shouldn't read KJV?

Indeed.

>If not which version should I read?

May as well be a Turkish one as long as it is approved by the Church. Why would you read it in English?

I, for example, cite NABRE when posting here:

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Bible-Revised-Edition-NABRE-Bible/#booklist

If you like the old fancy English and can actually understand it read Douay-Rheims:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=DRA&search=Genesis%201

Anyway, as long as it has approval for laity use by the Church it is fine.

>>5381

Which bible do you use in our vernacular, brother in Christ? Just the EÜ?

I have five different versions (Of the NT at least): Kürzinger, Allioli, 1964 Herder, Keppler and EÜ for travelling and for the psalms

>>5391

>Just the EÜ?

Only Einheitsübersetzung, yes. It is ok imo, and I like the commentary very much. In fact I have like 2-3 Bibles and even those I just got in school back in the day.

I am thinking of buying a fancy bible any time soon. A Vulgate and maybe some German one, not sure which one.

But I have ceased to read the bible for the most part, at least for now. This is what protestantism did to me ;^)

I am not sure how much laymen should engage in this tbh, there were good reasons for it being a privilege for so long after all.

>: Kürzinger, Allioli, 1964 Herder, Keppler and EÜ

What can you tell me about them? What do you think of the EÜ ?

What Bibles are approved for Liturgy use here btw? I like our Liturgy better than what I see in the EÜ.

>>5425

>I am not sure how much laymen should engage in this tbh, there were good reasons for it being a privilege for so long after all.

You need to read it to fend yourself from protestant lies. The devil bends the scripture to his liking. inb4 cf. Roman-Catholic Church

To be honest: the more I read the bible, the more I know why I am catholic.

Kürzinger is available for 20€ from the SSPX shop (or on ebay, it’s part of the Pattloch bible, care to buy a pre 1970 version), Allioli is the first bible I bought after my conversion and my most read one. The Herder I got because I thought it was the version used in the Schott laity missale but I was wrong, I like it. The new Herder bible is nothing like it though. It’s a good version nevertheless, with which especially the epistles read like they had been written today, without taking away their meanings. The Keppler is the newest I own and it’s a traditional one like the Allioli.

After having learnt more about bible translations in general, I am more fine with the NABRE and the EÜ. They are word-to-wordish, which is good. I’d like to have an Elberfelder CE, but that won’t ever happen :)

>What Bibles are approved for Liturgy use here btw

Should be the EÜ, but I am not 100% sure. In the 1962 mass they use a bible translation I haven’t found out yet. I might write a letter eventually to inquire this.

I like how I waited 12-14 hours to post this by accident

>>5477

In other notes:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711

> 5. Catholic laymen may attend Mass at a Society of St. Pius X chapel without committing any sin nor incurring any canonical penalty. However, the PCED guidance is that it "cannot recommend" attendance at the Society of St. Pius X chapels due to the danger of imbibing a "schismatic mentality." In other words, someone might find some Society priests fomenting division from full communion with the Church, their local Ordinary and/or the Holy Father in their sermons. The PCED's recommendation is not to attend their chapels habitually, but they acknowledge there is no sin committed nor canonical penalty incurred resulting from attending Mass at SSPX chapels solely out of the desire to worship according to the 1962 missal and in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

>>5477

>You need to read it to fend yourself from protestant lies. The devil bends the scripture to his liking.

But I see how the protestants fail with it, how should I be immune?

What if I start falling for the same stuff and make up things that accomodate to my feelings?

>Kürzinger is available for 20€ from the SSPX shop (or on ebay, it’s part of the Pattloch bible, care to buy a pre 1970 version), Allioli is the first bible I bought after my conversion and my most read one. The Herder I got because I thought it was the version used in the Schott laity missale but I was wrong, I like it. The new Herder bible is nothing like it though. It’s a good version nevertheless, with which especially the epistles read like they had been written today, without taking away their meanings. The Keppler is the newest I own and it’s a traditional one like the Allioli.

I'm thinking about Kürzinger and Allioli.

>I’d like to have an Elberfelder CE, but that won’t ever happen :)

Why not?

unless you mean an original one, this would be unlikely ;^)

>>5479

It is intriguing how every traditional fraternity and association is fought while modernism is allowed to pass by :/

>>5487

Well, you know better than to read something and then assume superiority in exegesis. If you have questions, ask a priest or your catholic brothers.

Well, the Elberfelder is probably the most evangelical translation there is. The translators dislike the deuterocanonical books Because of their protestant cognitive dissonance. Other than that, it’s pretty much the German NASB.

Somewhere in my basement, there is a 1912 Luther bible which I bought when I was an agnostic.

>It is intriguing how every traditional fraternity and association is fought while modernism is allowed to pass by :/

Yeah, bishops a shit.

>>1561

The pope has always sought to surround himself with infatiguable and infallible men.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banquet_of_Chestnuts

>>1626

His words in that article are true

Romans 2:6-11

Who will render everyman according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.

Matthew 12:31-32

Wherefore i say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither the world to come.

>>9206

>salvation by works

not even catholics theologian believe this

>>9203

> m.wiki

kill urselves

>>9203

topkek