Holy Bible Scriptures: Hard to understand or easy to understand?

Children are turning on their parents because there is a lack of real faith in the Church. The Church started to get greedy and stopped pruning, the Church wavered in its commitment to God. I mean really Churches have become feel good social clubs where "We all get to Heaven".

Gays lead Churches and the congregation says Amen.
Womanizers lead Churches and the congregation says Amen.
Molesters lead churches and the congregation says Amen.
Serial monogamists serve as deacons and church leaders.
Unwed Prego teen girls are doaded over.
...

Is it any wonder the youth are turning? They can read you know. What they see from their parents is not faith; it does not follow the Book. Churches the same.

I really can not blame the Atheists of the world for this as it is a Christian failure.

 

lol!!!

 

The sword represented the scalpel that would separate families, as is expounded upon in the very next paragraph.

 

Did you hear about the guy who smeared dog poo in his mother's face?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/worst-son-ever-187354

He has issues! Maybe he thought he was in compliance with Luke 14:26 (NKJV) = “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

 

This is a good article from the HuffPost by a muslim writer who discusses this subject from a muslim POV. Good reading.

Ramadan Reflection Day 20: Is It OK To Dislike A Parent?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-...e-a-parent_b_1758253.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

 

Is baptism neccessary some say no, some say yes.
Is infant baptism neccessary some say no, some say yes.
Is there a need for Holy Communion some say no, some say yes.
In the Holy Communion is Jesus really present, some say no some say yes.
Can we lose salvation some say, no some say yes.
Does salvation come from faith alone some say no, some say yes.
Is our salvation continuous some say no, some say yes, etc, etc.

These things are based on tradition within a given sect and so much so that they have become dogma/doctrine. I tend to go with what the Bible says. Jesus saved the Thief with none of the above.

 

It’s not what you think. The thief will be in the second resurrection spoken about in the Bible. The second resurrection is for all those who will not be in the first resurrection. But most Christians have never heard of the second resurrection because they don’t study most of the scriptures and what they don’t understand they either dismiss or spiritualize away.

 

Really? Paradise is the north side of hell. Until the appointed day; we all go to hell to await judgment.

I don't get deep into some things on the inter-webs but regardless my original point is valid. Tonight you will be with me in paradise. Christ did not say Heaven as he descended into the earth... you know how it goes. Some of us (perhaps you) who have studied ancient literature know that paradise was in hell. If Christ went into the earth for three days he could not have gone to Heaven to be with the thief. The thief was sent to paradise not torments. In my opinion Dantes Inferno is a great work.

 

Tell me why do you believe the Bible to be true?.
The Catholic Church gave the you the Bible, you accept it as true so why not it's other teachings?.
Many Protestants disagree with you, so tell me why should I believe your interpretation over any other Protestant church?.
The Catholic Church is the one true Church it has history the Bible and tradition to back it's claims, it also has the promise from Christ Himself that it would not error.

 

So you assume I am a Protestant?

My answer is that every word of the Bible is true. I see the truth in it. Fact and truth are not the same by the way.

I accept no additions to the Bible as doctrine. I do accept them as inspired works though. Some inspired by God and others inspired by Greed, Ego/Vanity/Pride and a lust for power.

 

Baptism can mean clean, wash, and submerge, it can me all or only one of these things. If you do not believe me look it up.

It does say in the Bible that it is neccessary to be bpatised Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-41, Galatians 3:26-27, Ephesians 4:5, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5. etc, etc.

I could give more verse but I think from the ones I have given you it is quite easy to see in the Bible baptism is deemed neccessary.

I have already explained to you about what Catholics call baptism of heart. Sometimes a person before dying or extremely ill, or never had the opportunity to be baptised in the normal way can call on to Jesus and recieve what we call baptism of heart. It's simply a true repentance and turning to God, if they get better then they should get baptised in the "normal" way. But if they die in this state then they would still be considered baptised. I hope what I just stated makes sense to you, as I may have not explained it very well.

 

How can they listen to what is being said in any Protestant church when they contradict each other, each church has it's own interpretations and it's own requirments.
The Catholic Church is the one true Church with the complete deposit of the faith. It's doctirnes are perfect and there is no error.

 

Of course I assume your a Protestant if you are not Catholic then you are one of those who broke from the Church.
I alos believe the Bible to be true, I also do not bleieve it is all to be taken literally some books are and some are not. The Bible is compiled of many books some parabel some psalms, some poetic etc.
I asked you though why do you believe it to be true?.
The Church had doctrines before the Bible was compiled. Tell me how did the early Church manage vefore the Bible was compiled do you believe there was no core doctrines to believe in then?.
If the Bible is infallible then those who composed those books that make up the bible were infallible in their writtings, do you agree?.
Was the Church infallible when it decided which books should be used in making the Bible?.

 

And whose Catholic Church? Which one? Lets see there was a split (you should know the reasons) and Eastern Orthodox came wait what about the mystic Greek and Russian Orthodox?

There is no right church only right practitioners.

 

I did tell you that I believed every word of the Bible to be true. I have studied the canonization of the Bible, I have studied the reasons some books we not put in the Bible. How much have you studied? Just asking because I will discuss I have not got time to teach.

 

I did tell you that I believed every word of the Bible to be true. I have studied (in collage and independently and I am no preacher I just have a love for the Word) the canonization of the Bible, I have studied the reasons some books we not put in the Bible. How much have you studied? Just asking because I will discuss; I have not got time to teach.

 

Well yes there is a right Church, the Roman Catholic Church can trace it's lineage right back to St.Peter. Also some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

I also brelieve the Bible to be completely true, I am not denying that.
I am asking why do you believe it to be true?.
What Church or from what place did this notion come that the Bible was true?.
The idea of Sola Scriptura came from Martin Luther who when some of his theology was decided to be in error seperated himself from the Church and claimed all anyone needed was the Bible and nothing else. Yet the irony is when the Bible also disagreed with his theology he decided to remove those books that contradicted his own beliefs, 7 of them. And Protestants have been splitting and fracturing ever since.
Now if the Bible is true as you and I both believe, then those who composed those books were infallible in their writtings and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It would also mean that the Church was infallible and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in deciding in what books went into creating the Bible. So if the Bible is true then the Church is true.
If the Catholic Church is fallible as all Protestants claim then the Bible is fallible yet Protestants cannot see the contradiction.

 

So was Martin Luther wrong?
Was Paul Wrong?
Yes intercession is one thing but a living man (Pope) can not interceded and he can not act for christ. There were some that were sent out to do the work of Christ. They were blessed by the Holy Spirit and granted the ability, through faith, to preform miracles. This is what it is.

The Catholic Church of today is not the Church in the beginning. It has done just as much harm to itself as the reformation ever did. I mean accepting Pagan rituals and integrating them into the faith as to Convert heathens? God is!

 

Having good reason to choose books does not make the books infallible they could still have errored in their choices, I mean there was many books that had good reason to also be considered but were not chosen. I care if the ones they chose are right and that there is none missing or none that need to be added. And if you are like me you would say the Bible is a complete there is nothing that should be added or taken away. Which would mean that those in compiling the Bible were infallible. Also if the Bible contains the full truth as you and I believe then those who wrote the books were infallible in their writtings. The Holy Spirit that guided and gave those people the grace to act infallibly still works and still still gives the same grace to the Church. This does not mean the Pope is infallible in every decision he makes, but it does mean he is when deciding doctrine and dogma. People within the Church can behave badly and can do things that are utterly disgraceful but the Churches doctrines are perfect.

 

Easy to see through.

 

I have studied the reasons some books we not put in the Bible.

I think you misread what I was saying there Bubba.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that paradise is the north side of Hell or that Hell has a north side? The word that is translated Hell in terms of where the dead is an inappropriate translation. The proper translation should be hadēs….. all-receiving. The world Hell is an old English word for a hole in the ground. Farmers at one time would bury their potatoes in hell for the winter.

The paradise that Jesus was referring to is the Earth or what it will be during the Millennium and beyond. When Jesus returns the kingdom of God will be set fully in place and the Earth will become what God had meant it to be. Even the desert will blossom.

 

Yes Martin luther was wrong in his theology and in removing 7 books. Though many of the beliefs Martin Luther had are now no longer accepted by most Protestants who though still accept he was right in removing 7 books. But many Protestants disagree with his theology as well. Martin Luther believed in the true presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther had a devotion towards Mary and accepted the Immaculate Conception, and thet Assumption as being true. However most protestnats no longer accept these truths, John Calvin also accepted many of these things that are no longer accepted by most protestants and these 2 would be considered tha fathers of Protestantism.
Martin Luther had no authority to tamper with the Bible, he had no authority to remove any books. If that was the case then any Tom, Dick, or Harry can add or subtract to the bible as they please.

As for St. Paul he was in accordance with the Church and spoke authoratively. But he also submitted to the Churches teachings and did not decide things for himself. In the Bible Paul went to preach to the Gentiles and was confronted with the question if they should be circumcised or not. He did not know the answer so he went back to consult with the other apostles (the Church) as to what action should be taken considering this matter. It is also evident during this meeting Peter was presiding over it he told the others to be quiet and they were obedient to him.

Nowhere in the bible does it say all you need for your sole authority is the Bible. As matter of fact the Bible clearly warns of self interpretation, it also clearly states that the Church has authority.

If as many Protestants claim we do not need institutions and teachings from any church all we neeed is the Bible, can they not see it was from the Church a religious institution (established by Jesus) that the Bible came. If we had no Church then there would be no Bible.

 

I'm sorry in my last post I never treplied to you bit about pagan rituals and the Pope.

Tell me do you believe after the death of Jesus the aposltes taught complete truth regarding the faith or could they have errored in their teaching?.

If you say they errored then that means all that they have said was wrong or it was partially wrong and we are continuing that error through teaching what they said whilst it could be in contradiction to the truth.

However if like me you believe they taught matters and doctrines concerning the faith without error, then they were infallible, and the Church has always been that way. It is clearly stated that Jesus gave authority to Peter as head of the Church, to say otherwise is just being ignorant to the scriptures. This authority has been past down in succession.

Also why should I accept anything any Protestant says as true when they themselves claim no one can be certain about anything. I mean they say no man is infallible so they are more or less saying we believe this, but it may not be true we could be wrong in what we are saying because no man is infallible. I do not want to settle on what may or may not be true, when it comes to my faith I want certainity.

As for the Catholic Church having pagan rituals I would like sopme examples please of these pagan rituals.
Many faiths have certain truths in them even though they are not Catholic or even Christian. For eg. buddhism is a faith based on peace, this is a good thing however though this aspect of it is true it is not complete truth. Certain faiths have more or less truth than others.
Incorporating good things from other religions is not the same as changing your beliefs. Customs, dress, cultures change, some traditions within the Church change but these are traditions with a samll "t". Traditions with a large "T" do not change, like the belief in Purgatory, the Assumption, and the Immaculate Concepiton, these things that many or most Protestants disagree with will not change. things that can change are the ways of doing things they would include rituals or dress or habits of prayer priests being allowed to get married abstinence of meat on Fridays. These are traditions with a small "t" they are not neccessary to the Catholic faith some are just a form of discipline.

However if there is any particular aspect of the Catholic faith you would like to ask me about feel free to do so.