Thank you!     

lula posts:

Leauki posts:

Not good? Are you kidding? Scripture may be read in parts but must be treated as a whole. One book or testament anticipates and clarifies another. The New Testament which is the Gospel of Christ is mighty good for Jews. The NT which is Divine Revelation explains Redemptive truth...your salvation plan.  Christ's sacrifice redeemed all mankind and opened the gates of Heaven. The promises were spoken to Abraham "and to his seed" meaning one person, Christ.

leauki posts:

Well, One can bring the horse to water, but one can't make him drink.

St.Peter said, "Wherefore, laying away all malice and all guile and dissumulations and envies, and all detractions, as newborn babes, desire the rational milk, without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation."

My version of Christianity IS the "rational milk".  

lula posts:

St.John Chrysostom would have answered your question, "We must not ask where Hell is, but how we are to avoid it." In Rom. hom. xxxi.

LEAUKI POSTS:

Believing in Hell is reasonable.

LEAUKI POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS:

Hell is a place where God condemns the wicked..including Jews.

Hell may not be a concept of modern Judaism, but it sure was a concept of Old Testament Judaism.

God did reveal information about the existence of Hell in Hebrew.

Read the Book of Numbers 16:20-33 wherre God sent Core, Dathan and Abiron (who caused a schism from Moses and Aaron among the Isrealites) alive into Hell.

Numbers 16: 20 And the Lord speaking to Moses and Aaron, said:

21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may presently destroy them. 22 They fell flat on their face, and said: O most mighty, the God of the spirits of all flesh, for one man's sin shall thy wrath rage against all? 23 And the Lord said to Moses: 24 Command the whole people to separate themselves from the tents of Core and Dathan and Abiron. 25 And Moses arose, and went to Dathan and Abiron: and the ancients of Israel following him,

26 He said to the multitude: Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins. 27 And when they were departed from their tents round about, Dathan and Abiron coming out stood in the entry of their pavilions with their wives and children, and all the people. 28 And Moses said: By this you shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all things that you see, and that I have not forged them of my own head: 29 If these men die the common death of men, and if they be visited with a plague, wherewith others also are wont to be visited, the Lord did not send me. 30 But if the Lord do a new thing, and the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that belong to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord.

31 And immediately as he had made an end of speaking, the earth broke asunder under their feet: 32 And opening her mouth, devoured them with their tents and all their substance. 33 And they went down alive into hell the ground closing upon them, and they perished from among the people. 34 But all Israel, that was standing round about, fled at the cry of them that were perishing: saying: Lest perhaps the earth swallow us up also.   

lula posts:

KFC posts 95

The Scriptural proofs of the Church's infallibility are numerous...

Starting with the passage I already quoted...."Know thou how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

The Church has to be infallible for this to be true.

Infallibility means the Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith and morals, she is our infallible guide to both. Therefore, Infallibility has nothing to do with the fact that her members including the Pope are sinners, needing the Sacrament of Penance. Infallibility does not mean the Pope and the bishops in union with him know everything or that he/they are inspired or receives or makes new revelation.

The function of infallibility is to ensure that we shall be able to know with certainlity truths which are vital to us and which we cannot find out for ourselves. The personal character of the Pope and Bishops are quite beside the point. God prevents them from falling into error only when he/they officially teach ex cathedra the entire Church on matters of faith and morals.

Christ came to earth to teach a true doctrine which should last for all time. He told Pilate, "For this I was born and for this I came into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." Christ, being All Wise All Foreseeing All Powerful, took the means to prevent the Apostolic teaching body from falling into error and therefore corrupting His doctrine. If Christ ahd not established an infallible teaching body on earth, when He ascended into Heaven His teaching would have ceased.

We learn from the OT, that for centuries God had been preparing mankind for the coming of His only begotten Son. Is it that after all this preparation, the Redeemer comes and teaches for 3 years to a few people in the small corner of the world? No of course not. The Redeemer founded a Chruch as a teaching body enabling it to carry on His teachings without error. God sent Christ, and Christ sent His Apostles to teach in His name and with His authority.

"And I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, becasue it seeth Him not., nor knoweth Him, but you shall know Him becasue He shall abide with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you....These things I have spoken to you, abiding with you.

But the Paraclete the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." St.John 14:6-18; 25-26.

In St Matt. 28:20 Christ gives the Apostolic teaching body His authority, sends them to all nations to teach and baptize in His name and tells them He will be with them all days, until the end of the world.

Christ gave them the power to bind and loose on earth and He will honor that in Heaven.

All this is meaningless if they do not signify that the Holy Spirit is to be responsible for what the Apostles and their rightful successors may define  to be part of Christ's teachings. If the HOoly Spirit is responsible for such definitions, they are surely infallible. What is guaranteed by the Spirit of truth cannot be false...and the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

I know that the Church cannot err in what she teaches becasue CHrist promised the gates of Hell  shall never prevail against His Church, that the Holy Spirit shall teach her all things, and that He Himself will be with her all days, even to the end of the world.

Ok, I'll bite.

Apart from promises, what exactly did or does the Roman Church do for Jews?

In your post #109 you gave me NO scripture to back up your belief that the church is infallible. 

I can give you several instances where the church has been proven fallible. 

The church is made up of believers.  We are the church correct?  Do you sin?  Are you fallible or infallible? 

Peter.  Was he fallible or infallible?  Did Jesus rebuke him for sin?  *shake your head yes*

Did Paul rebuke Peter for sin?  *shake your head yes*. 

Did Paul sin?  Was he infallible or infallible?  Did he say "I do the things I don't want to do and don't do the things I should do?" 

Did he talk about having a thorn in the flesh?  *shake your head yes.*  Although we don't know what this thorn is, could be physical or sinful he did have issues. 

Also the letters to the Corinthians were written to this church because of their sin issues.    Also read the description of the seven churches in the first couple of chapters of Revelation.  Out of 7 churches ONLY two had commendations.  The other five had sin issues. 

I will repeat.  The church is NEVER infalible in scripture because it's made up of sinful believers.  The only person who is infallible is Christ himself.  To say otherwise is to prove yourself a liar. 

A few scriptures to consider:

"he who is without sin cast the first stone."   Jesus said this himself knowing quite well there is no such thing as a non sinning person alive. 

"if we say that we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.  1 John 1:8

Leauki where are you getting the Messiah will build the temple?  Talmud?  

I'm sorry for coming late to the conversation.   Work has been keeping me busy as does a new puppy.  Leauki, you'll like her name: גְּדַלְיָה Gedalyah.  Your thoughts?

Leauki, I know one of your favorite past times is to get KFC and Lula to duke it out.  I know you are a reader and an intellect.  http://real-world-news.org/Evidence/Simon-Greenleaf.html Take a look at that.  Simon Greenleaf was one of the founders of Harvard Law School.  He is a religious Jew and a Lawyer who got sick and tired of christians saying Jesus is the Jewish Messiah so he set forth to disprove them.  I think I gave you the link some time ago.  Reading this really helped me because I could relate to both of his backgrounds (particularly being Jewish part).

Infidel, your comments are kind of like salt and pepper to the conversation.  Some are pretty funny.  I get the feeling you think most religious people are leptons.   I would direct you to William Lane Craig (any of his debates books: Reasonable Faith, Does G-D Exist? with Anthony Flew), Gary Habermas (he did a few debates, books: The Historical Jesus, the Case for the Resurrection of Jesus), Alvin Plantinga (all of his stuff is excellent), or Ravi Zacharias. 

Infidel, I was an atheist at the beginning of my life.  Then I became a follower of Yeshua (Jesus) late high school/earlier college.  If you're in college the library should have those books (even the more prestigous/liberal universities. I know this because I briefly attended one)

I would like to know more about who you are and where you are coming from Infidel.  I think I PMed you a long time ago.

KFC and Lula, this more for Lula.  I would refrain calling the OT the OT, especially when the discourse is with Jewish people.  As Leauki politely pointed out at the beginning but I don't think it made an impact.  This is very offensive (it offends me and I can understand Leauki's offense).  Use the word Tanack or just use the word Scriptures because all Scripture is G-D given. 

Also, what are your goals in having this discourse with Leauki? What are you planning on accomplishing?  If its to show how wrong he is no lofty agrument can win someone over.  Also, you can be so right that you're wrong.  In other words, if you are not coming in the right Spirit you can turn someone off EVEN if it is the Truth you are coming at them with.  Maybe you should ask him why isn't a follower or what turns him off from becoming a follower.  Actually Leauki, you can PM me those, because I would just like to hear that (Infidel you can PM aka Private Message me your response to those two questions).

Leauki and Infidel, I know Christians can come across as offensive, know it alls, condemn it alls, or no fun at alls.  I apologize if you encountered people/individuals like that.  I emplorer you both to look past that and dive into the Truth (Leauki in your case just take a deeper dive in without any 'glasses on' and Infidel just to dive in.)

Many Blessings!

1Tim 3:15,

Christ's Church indeed teaches with His infallible authority, "He who listens to you, listens to me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me." St.Luke 10:16; St.Matt. 10:40. Your definition of Church makes no sense with this passage. "He who listens to "believers", listens to Me and he who rejects "believers" rejects Me."

Christ gave His infallible teaching authority to the Apostles and they in turn to their lawful successors, the popes and bishops. Christ sent them to infallibly teach all nations until the end of the world. St. Matt. 28:16-20  Christ gave St.Peter and the other Apostles His infallible authority "to bind and loose."  St. Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18.

Another one is

And another St.John 14:18

St.Paul vindicates the Divine authority being taught by the Church in 1Thess. 2:23, "Therefore we also give thanks to God without ceasing; because when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as iti is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed." He obviously believed the Apostolic Body to be infallibly true.

The first infallible decision the Apostles made as a group occurred at the Council of Jerusalem. They issued a decree in the name of the Holy Spirit, "For it hath seemed good to the Holy GHost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things." Acts. 15:28.

Here at the first CC Council, the Apostles claim, in the name of the Holy Ghost, to decide a dogmatic question of first importance..whether Christians were bound to observe the Old Law in its entirety. They would certainly never have spoken this way unless they were convinced that Christ's promises had assured them of infallible guidance in their solemn decision making and utterances in the name of the Church.  That St.Peter and the other Apostles were sinners is quite beside the point.

I wrote

If Christ's Church, the Catholic Church is not infallible, then you have no certainty that the books in your Bible belong there. That decision occurred in the Council of Laodicea in 367, definitely adopted in the Carthage Council in 397 and declared ex cathedra (that is by infallible authority) at the Council of Trent 1564.

kfc posts:

All this shows is your confusion between  "infallibility" and "impeccability".  Again, Infallibility concerns the absence of error, not of sin. Infallibility belongs to the body of bishops, as a whole, in matters of faith and morals, they teach a doctrine as true. They proclaim Christ's doctrines infallibly. That's it. "He who listens to you, listens to Me. St.Luke 10:16, "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." St.Matt. 16:19; 18:18.  Infallibility means that what is officially taught will not be wrong or have any error...has nothing to do with sin.

For St.Peter the first Pope of His Church, Christ said, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail". St. John 21:15-17.

We members of the Church are all fallible...but according to St.Matt. 16:18-19, Christ built His Apostolic Church upon a ministerial, hierarchial, priesthood with St.Peter as its head. Christ gave His infallible teaching and preaching authority to them and they in turn gave it to their lawful successors.The popes and the bishops are fallible except in the times they formally define or teach a doctrine.

These instances of St.Peter and Paul's actions were of discipline, not official matters of faith and morals.

Infallibility is based on Christ's mandate to His Church....

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything He taught St.Matt. 28:19-20 and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit "to guide you unto all truth" St.John 16:13, That mandate and that promise guarantee the Chruch will never fall away from His teachings 1Tim. 3:15 even if the individual members might.

TPP posts:

TPP,

If my calling the Old Testament the Old Testament is "very offensive" to you, then you should refrain from reading my posts and commenting here.

Ezekiel 16:55

And your sisters: Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughters shall return to your former state.

What is the "former state" referred to here?

G-d instructed Israel to build a Temple in Jerusalem. That was the state the city should be in.

When Cyrus came, a Messiah, what did he do? He rebuilt the Temple.

Do you want me to expect less from the (not just "a") Messiah?

When the Second Temple was destroyed, Israelites (except perhaps the early Christians) again assumed that the Messiah would rebuild the Temple. Obviously this belief was reported in the Talmud.

Puppies are cool. The name is a bit dramatic. G-d, I hope it's a great puppy.

Actually, as I have pointed out before, I am not. I have no degree (only now working on a B.Eng. part time, mostly for the fun of learning) and I never fit into an academic environment (although most of my friends are academics).

I find the intellectual circle too removed from reality, especially the liberal arts majors.

I think I read that. But I am too convinced that the Messiah is supposed to do certain things and hence I feel no need to prove or disprove anything. I just wait.

If Jesus comes back and does the job, I'll be fine with him.

That's another thing. I don't care if "Infidel" believes in G-d. I believe that he will have a place in the next world whether or not he believes in something that cannot be proven or not.

Belief in G-d is something that helps us cope with life, it's not a quick way to improve one's status in G-d's eyes.

You can be an atheist all your life and be better than any believer.

Belief in G-d might help us do good deeds. But it is the deeds that make us better, not the faith that helps us doing them. In fact, I think an atheist who gives his life to save others is a better man than a religious person who does the same. Giving up everything for a good cause, without knowing that it wasn't really everything takes a better man than I can ever be.

I usually recommend the Bible to people because they learn from it, not because reading it might change their beliefs. Beliefs are secondary, unecessary even for those strong enough to be good without knowing what for.

I agree.

KFC shows me that Christianity can make people better. Her faith is impressive and I can see that it makes her a better person. She understands Judaism and Jews to an extend rare among gentiles. Whenever I feel down because Israel is under attack, KFC shows me that we are not alone and that faith can help us overcome problems.

I am sure part of what KFC wants to accomplish is that.

Lula just wants to tell me that everything I believe is wrong and that her Church is now what we used to be. Nothing good, for (the real) Israel comes from that Church!

The reason I am not a follow is surprisingly simple: I have no reason to be. I don't find Jesus more convincing than any of the other self-proclaimed (or real) prophets but I do have a problem with the idea that he is the "son of G-d". I believe G-d is one and indivisible, not a being that can have a "son".

I always keep my glasses on in order to protect my eyes. It's too easy getting blinded.

Leauki you and I are in agreement some/most of the time but certainly not here.  Why in the world is an atheist who give his life to save others a better man than one who  believes in God?  One is doing it in HIS OWN name and the other (like Christ) is doing it for God's glory NOT HIS OWN.  It's like Jesus said often "thy will be done."  Satan's mantra is "my will be done."  Who is better? 

Thanks Leauki.  Very kind words.  You might be interested to know that the Baptist Church I meet in for my bible studies with Marv (don't attend there normally tho) is having an "Israel Recognition Day" coming up.  The strongest bible believing Christians I know recognize the importance of Israel and their important part not only in history but also the future in God's plan. 

As far as being offensive, while I try my best NOT to be I do understand that the Gospel by it's very nature is offensive to many.  So since it's offensive already there's no need for me to be. 

Also I use the OT and the NT abbreviations for just that...abbreviations and to clarify where I'm getting something from rather than just saying "scriptures."  It's certainly not meant to offend but more to clarify. 

Ok.  There's alot to this.  To simplify in Marv's words.  The prophets saw ONLY the first coming and the second coming but as one period of time; not two like we do.  They saw and wrote about the suffering Messiah and the Conquering King.  They DID NOT see the valley in between these two mountain tops as they looked way up ahead.  They totally missed the valley in between because it had nothing to do with them.  It was the "times of the Gentiles" and not pertaining to them.

When Christ WAS NOT accepted the first time by his own people, he turned from the Jews  and towards the Gentiles but ONLY for a period of time called "the times of the Gentiles."  This is so that the promise to Abraham would be kept that "ALL nations of the earth would be blessed."  Paul wrote about this calling it a mystery revealed to us in the NT.  The Jewish believers now understood clearly what had once been a mystery to them before the death of Christ.  God was also going to call a people out for his name among the Gentiles. 

Here Ezekiel was writing about the second coming when the Messiah would come back to set up his rule.  So yes, the ultimate restoration of Sodom, Samaria, and Israel awaits the establishing of Christ's kingdom on the present earth. 

But when I talk about the temple being rebuilt it's BEFORE this tiime you're writing about here.  It will be like when Hanukkah was first observed because of the desacration of the temple.  This is going to happen again when the AC comes.   Again this would be before what Ezekiel wrote about here.  The final Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) will be observed during this time with a Feast of Tabernacles or Booths after that like never before. 

Go to Daniel 11:36-45 and read about this time.  The AC will set up his headquaters in Palestine between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea (v45) but his end will come after the "abomination of desolation" (v31) by polluting the new Temple.  There will be a hatred for the Jews unlike any other time in history.  We are gearing up for that now.   

Daniel has alot to say about this time.  Daniel for you is like the book of Revelation to the Christian.  To be totally clear and accurate both work together like a jig-saw puzzle. 

When Jesus left Jerusalem and turned to the Gentiles he wept over it and said this:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings and you would not.  Behold your house (temple) is left to you desolate.  For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you shall say, Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord (2nd coming).  Matthew 23:37-39  (Zechariah writes about this time when Israel will recognize Him and mourn). 

We must be careful about what we assume.  Usually we find ourselves incorrect.  We need to stay away from going on emotion and heresay and stay in scripture.  It's all there.  The true Messiah will come back AFTER the Temple is built and desecrated once again.  But first it HAS TO BE constructed. 

Israel's tabernacle was only a copy or shadow of the true tabernacle in heaven.  As long as the tabernacle and later the temple stood, the people of Israel were reminded that sin had not yet been conclusively dealt with. 

The most important thing to remember is that the tabernacle was designed to be a copy of the Almighty's throne room.  The ark of the covenant sat within the Most Holy Place as the Lord's footstood (Ex 26:34) and the cherubim woven into the curtains of the tabernacle were depictions of the heavenly host that glorify God day and night in heaven. 

The restricted access to God's presence in Israel was to remind the people that even though He had chosen them, something more had to be done to overcome the wide chasm between His holiness and humanity's impurity.  This chasm was bridged in Christ who now gives free access to God himself. 

kfc posts 88

KFC posts:

Gladly.

Based on Acts, of the Ethiopian and St.Philip, a deacon in the early Church, I claim that God Who inspired the Sacred Books has entrusted their interpretation to His Church which Scripture states "is the pillar and ground of truth". Christ gave His teaching authority to His Church and that teaching authority (now called the Magisterium) is  the official guide to understanding the true meaning of Scripture.

You deny this saying every "born again" Christian is his own official guide to interpreting Scripture because of the guidance and indwelling of the HS. You quoted 1St.John 2: verse 20 and then skipped to 27 as your proof text.

To which I said the chapter when taken in its full context gives a completely different conclusion than your claim as to its meaning and in fact, cements mine.

The passages that we need to consider are 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 27.

18 "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come;..." 

20, "But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know (your version has it as "you know everything").

21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it and know that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the father and the son.

24, Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. 26 I write this to you about those who would deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you received from him abides in you and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything and is truth and is no lie and even as it has taught you, abide in Him.

St. John covers the theme that the fidelty of the Christians is being tested by the heretics "who would deceive" them v 26.

Verse 20,  St.John tells them that they "have been anointed" by the Holy One. He says by this anointing they "know  everything". Here St. John is stressing to the Christians they do not need to listen to teachings other than those of the Church; that they are being guided by the HS which gives them certainty and sureness of faith. St.John does NOT mean that the faithful have no need of the teaching body of the Chruch (the Magisterium) for the very fact that he is writing to them shows otherwise.

What St.John is making clear is that their true teacher is the Holy Spirit who guides the Magisterium in its teaching and he also acts in the soul of the Christian helping him to accept that teaching. That's why the Church has unity "in one Spirit" Ephesians 4:4-6.

On these passages, St. Augustine taught, "If this anointing teaches you everything, it seems that we pastors are toiling to no purpose. Why so much shouting on our part? This is the marvelous thing. The sound of our words are striking your ears, but the Master is within. Do not think that it is a question of somebody learning from a man; we can attract your attention by the power of our voice, but if he who does the teaching is not within, all our sermons will be in vain." In Epist. Ioann. ad Parthos 3.13.

So, it's out of the question that St.John meant as you claim that each individual Christian has full authority as his own guide at the expense of the authority of the Church's teaching office. We know this is true becasue of the emphasis placed at the beginning on the function of the witnesses 1:1. Those witnesses to the Faith are the Apostles to whom the Risen Christ gave His authority and sent to teach and baptize all nations until the end of the world. St.Matt. 28:19-20.

What the Holy Spirit teaches Christians about is exactly the same as what they heard from the beginning v.24. ANd what then is that? Read St.John 14:26, and 15:26....which I've already cited, but it's worth repeating...the Paraclete, and in His power (authority), the Apostles, the disciples bearing witness.