Peace to you!
Lets examine:
Christ is the Truth. He states so Himself. The Bible contains scripture (the Psalms, the Prophets, Moses, and Revelation). The Bible also contains letters that were not inspired (not given in spirit), that often dealt with specific issues of the day; as well as gospel accounts bearing witness to Christ and what Christ said and did.
But the Bible is not the Truth. It never even makes that claim of itself.
I said this very same thing. Your preachn to the choir hon.
Then we are on the same page with at least one thing.
Saying something is a pillar and foundation of the truth is not the same as saying that something IS the Truth.
The Church is referred to as pillar and foundation of truth. The foundation. That means it is how Christ wanted His message communicated.
I responded to this in post 104 I believe. Regarding people being made pillars in the temple (such as the apostles, but also anyone who overcomes, from the verse in Revelation).
We - the Church - are to bear witness to Christ and to share as He has taught us; as the apostles did, as we are all to do. But our Head is Christ. He is the One who teaches us. How can we share what He gives us to share if we do not learn from Him?
Christ is both the foundation and the Head of His Church (which is His body).
But for the sake of argument, even if Paul did mean that the Church is the Truth, how in the world could that be referring to the RCC?
I already showed how. The Catholic Church meets the four marks of how we are to identify Christs Church that we can find in Scripture.
A - I did not ask you how the RCC could be identified as the Church. I asked how the RCC could be identified as the Truth, when falsehood comes from her?
B - these would be the four marks that the RCC have
themselves decided are what identifies the Church, yes?
The WTS has its own criteria of what makes them the true religion. Both sets of criteria are a bit self-serving, since they point to themselves as meeting those marks, yes?
The four marks that the Scripture says the Church must be One (teaching a unified message),
The WTS teaches a unified message. That does not make the WTS the Church (or the Truth).
(But is not the oneness of the Church (the Body of Christ) her being in Christ and Him being in her; and they are in God and God is in them).
Holy (the Catholic Church has been a defender of the faith, a defender of the oppressed, the downtrodden, the poor, the hungry, a defender of life from the moment of conception until the moment of death, the largest charitable organization in the world, the founder of schools and hospitals, the home of Saints, etc.),
I don't know how anyone can write that with a straight face. The RCC has oppressed the vulnerable and downtrodden; forced conversions; committed executions and torture and punishment and persecution (all things Christ clearly speaks against), even ordered persecution to be committed (orders that came from the leaders in the RCC). Babies have been stolen from young mothers; children have been torn from their families (residential school systems for native children) and then abused on top of that original crime against them.
She (the RCC) has blood on her hands, including the blood of the saints and the vulnerable and the oppressed.
Catholic (or universal " the Catholic Church is on every continent in the nation. All are welcome.
The WTS is on every continent too. Doesn't make the WTS true any more than it makes the RCC true.
She is your home too),
She is not. 500 years ago (maybe even less) she would have put someone like me on trial, imprisoned me, persecuted me, falsely accused me, perhaps even tortured me or handed me over to be executed. I would have had to deny and disobey my Lord in order to avoid this persecution.
The Adversary
uses religion as a means to persecute Christ (and those who belong to Christ). He used the temple and priesthood to persecute Christ Himself, and then those who belonged to Him. He used the next religion to come on the scene (the RCC) to do the same thing; he is using the WTS to do the same thing today (though they do not literally execute anyone, they do persecute those in them who take a stand for Christ, whose faith is in HIM, who bear witness to Him when that witness reveals the WTS as not being the truth; and they even put them on trial and possibly expel them - not for sin - but simply because of their faith in Christ, instead of in the WTS)
Christ Apostolic (Only the Catholic Church has existed for 2017 years and can trace her roots back to Jesus Christ Himself with an unbroken line of succession.
A - the RCC cannot trace her roots back to Christ... at most the RCC can trace her roots back to around that time. Same time as the false prophets and false christs that also existed. Considering her disobedience and fruits (some of which include persecuting Christ by persecuting those who belong to Christ)...
B- what makes you think that there is some kind of apostolic succession? What does that mean to you?
A disciple was chosen to replace Judas, yes, but
not because Judas had died. Because Judas had turned his back on being one of the twelve apostles, betraying his Lord. One of the twelve seats (one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel) had been left vacant.
Does falsehood come from the Truth?
No it does not.
Then the RCC cannot be the Truth. Neither can any person (other than Christ)be the Truth, and neither can any other religion be the Truth. ALL of them have taught falsehood.
And the Catholic Church has not taught errors in her teachings in matters of faith and morals.
This is like saying, we never teach errors except when we do, but when we do teach errors, it doesn't count.
How can anyone buy that?
Oh wait:
An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it that way! Jeremiah 5:31
Does the Truth tell lies and teach error?
No, but sometimes human beings within the Church do. Sad, but true. Since the existence of God, many who have been appointed by God Himself have still fallen short, screwed up, and sinned. Scripture even recognizes this sad truth.
So when popes and priests and bishops and cardinals, etc, teach error... then they are just imperfect men, but they are not the Church (by which you mean the RCC). Therefore the RCC never teaches error (otherwise you have to admit that the RCC does teach error and therefore cannot be the Truth). Only when those in charge are teaching or doing good are they truly the Church?
Pretty slippery.
Any religion EVER created could use that excuse. (and they do, in fact)
Do you think the RCC has never taught something false?
Not as an official Church teaching on matters of faith or morals.
In other words, yes, the RCC has indeed taught false things. Those teachings just don't count.
Every single one of them has (and does) teach falsehood, even if in ignorance.
But your body of believers gets it right, huh?
I'm not the one calling myself the Truth. Nor saying 'listen to me'. The Body of Christ bears witness to THE Truth: who is Christ (who teaches no falsehood). She says, "listen to HIM, come to HIM".
How would we know?
How would you know if someone is getting something right? By testing all things against Christ, holding all things up against the Light and the Truth (Christ, Himself).
Where are your teachings?
"MY" teachings?
I have no teachings. I can only share what Christ teaches and point to Him. They are HIS teachings; HIS commands; HIS word.
Can your church trace its roots back to Jesus Christ Himself and if so, may I see these records?
The Church is the Body of Christ - made up of people who belong to Christ, who are anointed with holy spirit. He
IS the root (the cornerstone, the foundation) of His Church; of each person IN His church. Her faith is built upon HIM.
What record do you think exists to reveal that - other than Christ knowing His own and His own knowing Him?
And what record do you think you have to trace the RCC back to Christ - instead of to the false christs and false apostles? Do you have something from Him that states the RCC is from Him? Something written even from Peter that states the RCC is from
him?
Or is it just a claim?
You must recognize the irony in your comment. You deny the Pope because you see yourself as your own Pope.
And what is the definition of a pope? If it is a high priest, then CHRIST is the high priest.
Certainly not me.
Thats what Christ hoped to avoid " everyone relying on personal interpretation of His Word.
I am not relying on personal interpretation of His word. I could never give myself that much credit.
I am relying upon Christ, as anyone seeking Him and having faith in Him should be doing.
ONLY CHRIST is the Truth. He is the ONLY one (other than God, Himself) who can TRUTHFULLY bear the title, "Truth".
Then why deny what He says and does?
I have not.
I wasn't. I was not referring to anything written. I said, and repeat, it is my Lord, Himself, who taught me how to test what others claim, to see if they are speaking from Him, to see if what they claim is true (or not).
What He told me is backed up by what is written, but I learned it first from Him.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Now, you see... skepticism from an atheist or an agnostic (or anyone who does not believe in Christ), I can understand. Because they do not believe in God or in Christ being alive.
If you were yet seeking Christ or yet immature in Him, then okay, perhaps you just overlooked all the evidence and examples in what is written showing that He does speak to His sheep.
But once you have seen these things, and if you profess to be one of His sheep and one who knows Him, then should you not also know that He speaks? He is alive, yes? He said that His sheep would hear His voice, yes? We have examples of Him doing just that, yes?
Why do you think He cannot speak? Why do you think He would refuse to speak to His sheep (despite His words to the contrary)? Or is it just that you think He would not speak to someone like
me? Is what I shared from Him against what He taught, what other disciples taught as well (to test things people claim against Him)?
If it is not against anything He taught, then why do you say to me,
"Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight."
So, receiving important and valuable information and truths from those God appointed does not negate those truths.
No one ever said it did.
[
quote]How many people out there claim to read 'scripture as a whole', and use that to justify any number of interpretations?
How many people out there claim to be testing everything by the light of Christ and use that to justify any number of interpretations?
[/quote]
This is a deflection.
(and previously answered in post 104 which you have yet to respond to)
People can make 'scripture as a whole' say whatever they want it to say.
People can make their light of Christ mantra say whatever they want it to say. . .
You are just continuing your deflection.
Christ told me it is a sin to receive a blood transfusion
Doesn't make much sense, considering He gave us His blood so that we can live. Not just the blood He poured out on the ground, but holy spirit (the breath, blood, seed of JAH), that He breathed onto the apostles, and those at Pentecost, and Cornelius, etc.
Even though Christ never forced anyone to 'convert'
Since the beginning, there have been many over zealous followers of Christ,
Were they truly followers
of Christ... or were they followers of men, of a religion which promoted and even ordered forced conversions?
Even though Christ enslaved no one, but made HIMSELF a slave, to serve others
No one in the above scenarios was listening to Christ
I agree.
Well, your RCC was part of those in the aforementioned scenarios.
Quote:
Is it usurping God to listen to His son?
God said to listen to His Son.
Quote:
Then why is it usurping Christ to listen to His Church?
It is usurping Christ to listen to and look to anyone or anything else before, over, or against Him.
Your anti Catholic bigotry is showing again.
So you are an anti-jw bigot then? Or an anti-"all religion or faith except my own" bigot?
Your straw man regarding the Catholic Church is getting old.
What straw man?
The Catholic Church is not doing anything Christ didnt already tell us to.
Her deeds and history show otherwise.
Even you don't deny it. You just dismiss all those terrible things that they did, as 'not counting'.
Why not just listen to Him? Truly?
Right back at ya, hon!
It makes sense, right? For Him to have established a Church, a visible, audible, earthly authoritative voice? Pretty sweet, right? Why undermine His right, power, and genius in doing so? Truly?
No, what is "pretty sweet" is that HE has not left us orphans; what is 'pretty sweet' is that HE speaks to His sheep (as He promised He would). What is 'pretty sweet' is that we can come to Him, be with Him, hear His voice, be taught by Him. What is 'pretty sweet' is that we can truly KNOW Him, personally.
What is 'pretty sweet' is that He, Himself, comes to us:
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
Wouldnt an earthly, authoritative Church make sense given this from Scripture . . .
I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.-John 16
Ah... no. You quote a verse that explicitly states that the spirit of Truth will guide us into all truth; and somehow you think that supports the idea that it is men who will guide us into all truth?
I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 2 John 1
Yes, their joy would be complete because they would be talking
in person! Just as we have joy when we hear the voice of our Lord, when He gives us manna (His words), and when He is teaching us HIMSELF, when He comes to us HIMSELF.
Not via pen and ink or via some other messenger, but He, Himself.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
."
