Has anyone here ever read this document?

[Jane_Doe22]

Scripture already answered your question: "how are those answers determined?"

Scripture says The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Not you. Not me. Not your truth. Not my truth. (1Timothy 3:15)

If you have a difference with your brother you take it to The Church to decide. (Matthew 18:17)

Again, the question becomes which Church? Which teachers are true and which are false?

Are you familiar with the Council of Jerusalem in Scripture?

Thoroughly. As well as thoroughly studying the beliefs of many different churches, including Catholicism (since I know you're going to ask about that one).

 

[bbyrd009]

You guess that it is pretty unlikely that you are deceiving yourself.

You believe it is pretty unlikely that you are deceiving others (and yourself) on this forum when you articulate you interpretation of scripture. Are you comfortable with possibly deceiving your fellow Christians?

Do you feel bad that you might be telling them something OPPOSITE of what scripture teaches and that you may be twisting scripture?

Mary

you're just bloviating right, i mean you aren't really expecting a reply to this are you

 

[Marymog]

Hullo again Marymog,
Hullo is British. NZ's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, you get the picture.
Personally I don't bother with denominations and their various dogmas. I believe we each have a responsibility to rightly divide the word of truth, and so do those I fellowship with, so we compare notes and share hopes.

Silly me.....I should have just googled it before I asked. Definition of HULLO Thank you for answering :)

Dogma is a set of doctrines or beliefs concerning faith or morals that are formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed. Are you saying that you and the people you fellowship with don't have a set of beliefs/morals that you abide by? If someone in your group said abortion is not murder the rest of you just look at them and say "You can believe that. We have no set beliefs here." Another speaks up and say's "I support gay marriage and am getting married to my partner". Your response is "OK....We have no moral judgment in our group. See ya' at the wedding"!!! Now I could go on and on and on with many more examples but I think you get the gist of what I am asking?

A denomination has a hierarchy to it: Pope, cardinals, bishops, deacons priest OR Lead Pastor, Pastor, associate Pastor OR Bishop, deacons, elders and lay people etc etc. The men of the New Testament set up a hierarchy for The Church and the men at the top of the hierarchy were to train and appoint other men who were then to train and appoint other men (2Timothy 2:2). Do you feel comfortable practicing your faith in a way that is opposite of what the men who walked and talked with Jesus practiced?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

It is obvious to those who know, those who watch and see.
'Come out of her my people and be ye not partakers of her sins for her sins have piled to heaven'
It is to be expected that false prophets have silver tongues..... 'you will know them by their fruits'

Thank you quietthinker. I assume you are saying it is obvious who the false prophets and deceivers are.

Is it obvious to you? If so, can you name a few of them? Historical and current.

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Mary

do you feel comfortable going around like some Insane Clown Posse Nun accusing ppl of things you can't back up, Mary?
sure seems like

you are saying it is obvious who the false prophets and deceivers are.

no kidding

 

[Marymog]

Again, the question becomes which Church? Which teachers are true and which are false?

Thoroughly. As well as thoroughly studying the beliefs of many different churches, including Catholicism (since I know you're going to ask about that one).

I agree with you that it becomes a question of "which Church". However, it is NOT a question of "which teachers"! For you can have a false teacher inside The Church but that false teacher will be told by the Church he is wrong in his teaching and if he refuses to listen to The Church he is to be treated like a heathen. Scripture says, Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. Scripture instructs us to not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I agree with you that it becomes a question of "which Church". However, it is NOT a question of "which teachers"! For you can have a false teacher inside The Church but that false teacher will be told by the Church he is wrong in his teaching and if he refuses to listen to The Church he is to be treated like a heathen. Scripture says, Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. Scripture instructs us to not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

Mary

I'm feeling like this really doesn't address my question. Could we try again? (Not trying to be obstinate here at all-- I think we had an honest misconnect on the communication channel).

 

[Marymog]

you're just bloviating right, i mean you aren't really expecting a reply to this are you

If you consider asking you legitimate questions based on the statements you made as "bloviating" then it is clear you don't know how to properly use the word ;)

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Your not prepared......

Mary

 

[Marymog]

do you feel comfortable going around like some Insane Clown Posse Nun accusing ppl of things you can't back up, Mary? sure seems like no kidding

Wow....."Insane Clown Posse Nun". How articulate and Christian like of you.

What is an Insane Clown Posse Nun? What accusation did I make that you FEEL I cant back up??

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I'm feeling like this really doesn't address my question. Could we try again? (Not trying to be obstinate here at all-- I think we had an honest misconnect on the communication channel).

Here are your questions: Again, the question becomes which Church? Which teachers are true and which are false?

I agree with you that it is a question of "which Church" (is the pillar and foundation of Truth and we are to take our differences to)!!!

I disagreed with you that it is a question of "which teacher" since scripture clearly shows there can be a false teacher inside The Church. We don't look to teachers for The Truth....we look to The Church.

Clearer now??

That is the reason I asked you if you knew about the Council of Jerusalem. It wasn't ONE Apostle or disciple who decided for the whole Church what was good to the Holy Spirit. It was The Church (a gathering of The Church leaders) that decided. Those same Apostles laid hands on and anointed others who were to continue the teaching of that Truth to faithful men and then those men were to teach others that Truth (2Timothy 2:2). The Church continued thru Apostolic Succession. Can you historically show me when that Succession ended and the Truth stopped being passed down to faithful men?

Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Here are your questions: Again, the question becomes which Church? Which teachers are true and which are false?

I agree with you that it is a question of "which Church" (is the pillar and foundation of Truth and we are to take our differences to)!!!

I disagreed with you that it is a question of "which teacher" since scripture clearly shows there can be a false teacher inside The Church. We don't look to teachers for The Truth....we look to The Church.

Clearer now??

Cool. Like I said, honest misconnect.

So, let's focus on the church part: how do we determine which church is Christ's True Church?

That is the reason I asked you if you knew about the Council of Jerusalem. It wasn't ONE Apostle or disciple who decided for the whole Church what was good to the Holy Spirit. It was The Church (a gathering of The Church leaders) that decided. Those same Apostles laid hands on and anointed others who were to continue the teaching of that Truth to faithful men and then those men were to teach others that Truth (2Timothy 2:2).

I got zero arguments with this.

The Church continued thru Apostolic Succession. Can you historically show me when that Succession ended and the Truth stopped being passed down to faithful men?

Now that's several leaps.
There are multiple lines of claimed Apostolic Succession -- which/how do you pick from them?
There's also several theological and epistemological assumptions you're making here.

Note: as I said earlier, I have extensively studied Catholicism. Spoiler: I am not Catholic and do not find that to be the True Church. I respect your conclusions though, and am happy to talk about things-- I love understanding different people's beliefs! That's why I studied Catholicism so extensively in the first place :) But if your goal here is to try to convince me to accept Catholicism, I'd like to know now so we can skip what will invariably just turn into a headache.

 

[bbyrd009]

I'm feeling like this really doesn't address my question. Could we try again?

feel familiar yet?
lol

But if your goal here is to try to convince me to accept Catholicism

dingdingdingding

 

[bbyrd009]

who wouldn't love to witness a "conversation" between Mary and Dave?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

feel familiar yet?
lol

dingdingdingding

I'm a lover of interfaith dialogue-- been at this for decades. Needless to say I've ran into more than a few people who are only interested in converting me and not really having interfaith discussions. They exist, and on forums some of them make me us the 'ignore' feature.

But not everyone is that way. Some people are honestly cool inter-faith dialogue and just talking with people without the "you MUST convert" motive. So my default is to give people the benefit of the doubt at first: let's just talk about things, no pressure. If I need to put up my "hey, I'm not here to be prostylized to" sign, I'll do that. Some people listen, some don't. Those that listen are cool just talking, I'm thrilled to have had had many great conversations. Those that just want to prostylize... me saying "no thank you" and politely declining saves us both time/headache.

The previous post was just me putting up my "hey, I'm not here to be prostylized to" sign to that's clear for everyone.

 

[Marymog]

Cool. Like I said, honest misconnect.

So, let's focus on the church part: how do we determine which church is Christ's True Church?

I agree....an honest misconnect.

That's what I am essentially asking you!! How do we determine which church is Christ's True Church?

Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I agree....an honest misconnect.

That's what I am essentially asking you!! How do we determine which church is Christ's True Church?

Mary

By going to the source of all Truth: God Himself and ask Him. Not by going to sinners, or the recounts of sinners doings (aka history), or pedestaling men's logic, etc. By humbling asking God and listening His answer.

In my time studying Catholics, I noticed that many there use history-base epistemological approaches. I have a number of disagreements with that methodology, but for a thought experiment I did explore it for a while to better understand these believers. Honestly, using the same methodology I came to different results than the Catholics around me, but I still respect their conclusions/beliefs. Like I said earlier, my purpose of exploring Catholicism was not to be change my beliefs or to be prostylized too, but to better understand & love Catholic people.

Bytheway: Mary, would you mind acknowledging that you here my "no thank you to prostylizing" request? Just so I know the communication bridge is working.

 

[Marymog]

Now that's several leaps.
There are multiple lines of claimed Apostolic Succession -- which/how do you pick from them?
There's also several theological and epistemological assumptions you're making here.

Note: as I said earlier, I have extensively studied Catholicism. Spoiler: I am not Catholic and do not find that to be the True Church. I respect your conclusions though, and am happy to talk about things-- I love understanding different people's beliefs! That's why I studied Catholicism so extensively in the first place :) But if your goal here is to try to convince me to accept Catholicism, I'd like to know now so we can skip what will invariably just turn into a headache.

Dear friend....I did not take "several leaps". I quoted scripture (2Timothy 2:2). Paul trained Timothy in the Truth. He was instructed to train others so that they could then train others. That covers three generations (for a lack of a better word) of training. That is not a leap. That is what scripture says. A leap would be to say that 2Timothy 2 PROVES that the RCC is a product of Apostolic Succession.

Could you name the "multiple lines of claimed Apostolic Succession"? There is the RCC and the Orthodox Churches which broke/separated from Rome in the year 1054 AD. That is two that I historically know of. BOTH Churches, historically, have Apostolic Succession. Have you more to add to the list?

If the Catholic Church is not the True Church, which one is? Which church did you "find" to be the True Church?

Is it not true that you are making several theological and epistemological assumptions also?

My goal is not to convince you to accept Catholicism. It is to defend it. Also, my goal is to hear your defense of what you believe and why you believe backed up by facts and scripture.

You failed to answer or dodged my question: Can you historically show me when that Succession ended and the Truth stopped being passed down to faithful men?

Mary

edited

 

[Jane_Doe22]

My goal is not to convince you to accept Catholicism. It is to defend it. Also, my goal is to hear your defense of what you believe and why you believe backed up by facts and scripture.

OK, I got to address this point first and foremost before we go any where else.

I am not attacking Catholicism. There is no need for you to "defend" Catholicism when A) no one is attacking it and B) truth of things stand perfectly well on it's own without internet posters "defending" it. Such only breeds contempt against Catholicism or whatever other faith is being "defended".

We just had a conversation last week, wherein you ask me if I wanted someone to go around "defending" what I believe and I told you "no, Truth stands on it's own". Too often "defenders" of truth are like Peter swinging his sword at Malchus. Too often the go around with anti-Christ tactics and when deaf ears.

I want NO part of such "defense" of any faith.

 

[Marymog]

By going to the source of all Truth: God Himself and ask Him. Not by going to sinners, or the recounts of sinners doings (aka history), or pedestaling men's logic, etc. By humbling asking God and listening His answer.

In my time studying Catholics, I noticed that many there use history-base epistemological approaches. I have a number of disagreements with that methodology, but for a thought experiment I did explore it for a while to better understand these believers. Honestly, using the same methodology I came to different results than the Catholics around me, but I still respect their conclusions/beliefs. Like I said earlier, my purpose of exploring Catholicism was not to be change my beliefs or to be prostylized too, but to better understand & love Catholic people.

Bytheway: Mary, would you mind acknowledging that you here my "no thank you to prostylizing" request? Just so I know the communication bridge is working.

The Apostles were sinners. Did they use the wrong logic when they came up with their decision at the Council of Jerusalem that was binding on all Christians and that, according to them, was good to the Holy Spirit? Did they not humbly ask God and listen to His answer?

It sounds like you agree with the history-based epistemological approaches of Protestant theologians. Why are they ok to agree with but not Catholic theologians?

I find it fascinating that you have a number of disagreements with that methodology (history-base epistemological approaches) but you then admit that you used the same methodology. Soooo you don't like it when the historical record disagrees with what you believe but you like it when it agrees with what you believe?

Sorry, I don't understand your question: would you mind acknowledging that you here my "no thank you to prostylizing" request? Are you asking me NOT to proselytize to you? To the best of my knowledge, I haven't. Do you have an example of when I did?

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Reiterating: I want NO part of "defending" of any faith.