Originally posted by SeitseHow about, Numbers 6:23-27?
1 Peter 3:9
Not only we all CAN but we all MUST bless others.
You're welcome.
23 Say to Aaron and his sons: Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: 24 The Lord bless you, and keep you. 25 The Lord show his face to you, and have mercy on you. 26 The Lord turn his countenance to you, and give you peace. 27 And they shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kquoting scripture! you'll be a Jehovahs Witness yet!
How about, Numbers 6:23-27?
23 Say to Aaron and his sons: Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: 24 The Lord bless you, and keep you. 25 The Lord show his face to you, and have mercy on you. 26 The Lord turn his countenance to you, and give you peace. 27 And they shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.
Originally posted by Conrau KGAG CHOKE SPASM
I don't think so. Remember the Catholic Church believes not only that her doctrines are compatible with Scripture but that she is first and foremost the author and guardian of all canonical Scripture.
The Catholic religion is bogus. And so is all the other denominations. I'm a huge iconoclast. I hate religion. Religion drags a man away from God. I can't stand pontificators of all stripes.
God's Word stands alone and requires no man or man made institution to preserve it.
Originally posted by Conrau KThat's your view and that's fine. But for ones who actually stand back and look at the horrible history of the Cathoilc church in the past and even still today and the unscriptural man made dogma and the burdens it puts on the members, it's not even close to being a guardian of the TRUTH at all. It has evolved with so many pagan dotrines incorporated into it, so it would be acceptable to so many who believed in other ways, to gain all the people into it as it could over the centuries. It's a religion of convienance because it accepts so many false beliefs and as has been said, it's "so pretty and awe inspiring and mysterious to be a part of. All that glittery stuff is so cool to see......
I don't think so. Remember the Catholic Church believes not only that her doctrines are compatible with Scripture but that she is first and foremost the author and guardian of all canonical Scripture.
But the truth is it teaches nothing of the Bible's truth's at all.
Originally posted by SeitseI was hoping you would refer to Luke 6:27-28.
Sure, it is between Genesis and Revelations.
Enjoy! 🙂
"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to
those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for
those who mistreat you." (NASB)
The point is, that giving a blessing is not something magical,
Jesus told all who hear his words to love, pray, bless, and do
good to even our enemies. The Pope does not have some
special authority to do something magical by proclaiming a
blessing, as I think you were trying to point out.
Originally posted by josephwGod's Word stands alone and requires no man or man made institution to preserve it.
GAG CHOKE SPASM
The Catholic religion is bogus. And so is all the other denominations. I'm a huge iconoclast. I hate religion. Religion drags a man away from God. I can't stand pontificators of all stripes.
God's Word stands alone and requires no man or man made institution to preserve it.
Well, I think it's an idea that leads dangerously to fundamentalism when Scripture is separated from its human origins. I think this is one advantage of the Catholic Church's position because, for Catholics, the Church came first and the Church authored and collected the Scripture and so Catholics can be quite comfortable with recognising the historical and social dimensions to its composition.
Originally posted by galveston75That's your view and that's fine.
That's your view and that's fine. But for ones who actually stand back and look at the horrible history of the Cathoilc church in the past and even still today and the unscriptural man made dogma and the burdens it puts on the members, it's not even close to being a guardian of the TRUTH at all. It has evolved with so many pagan dotrines incorporated int ...[text shortened]... o cool to see......
But the truth is it teaches nothing of the Bible's truth's at all.
Well, it's not my view.
the burdens it puts on the members,
Because the JW religion imposes no burdens at all...
Originally posted by Conrau Kcan i ask you how it is so that the Catholic church claims to be the author of the ancient text? serious question.
[b]That's your view and that's fine.
Well, it's not my view.
the burdens it puts on the members,
Because the JW religion imposes no burdens at all...[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau KNo burdens at all.
[b]That's your view and that's fine.
Well, it's not my view.
the burdens it puts on the members,
Because the JW religion imposes no burdens at all...[/b]
But as an example Jesus made it crystal clear that he is the "only" way and "only" one to whom we can approach God his Father in prayer. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” John 14:6, 14, Acts 4:12.
But Catholics have a different view with is and it has to do with Jesus's mother Mary.
Catholics have a very distorted view of Mary which completely dishonors God himself. The assumption dogma claims that Mary is some intercessor with God. Jesus never endorsed such a teaching ever. Only Jesus not Mary intercedes with Jehovah . It's through Jesus not Mary that we approach God for “help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:16
So understanding the truth about who Mary is and isn't, "sets one free" from this un needed burden and confusion and the mistake of praying to Mary or someone else when we are only to pray thru Jesus.
One of many, many examples of how the truth is realy simple and clear and not filled with man made burdens and silly dogma.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSure. The NT is not something that was given to the early church. It clearly emerged quite some time into the period of the early church. Mark perhaps was 60CE; John may have been as late as 90-100CE. Matthew and Luke are generally located in between, almost universally believed to have been sometime after 70CE. The Pauline letters are generally presumed to have been earlier, perhaps as late as 60C, though some might have been post-Pauline and therefore possibly quite more recent.
can i ask you how it is so that the Catholic church claims to be the author of the ancient text? serious question.
I think the interesting point is that the church existed sometime before the Scripture even existed. I am not even sure when the early church came to think of Scripture as one bound, divinely inspired book. The idea of the canon was not really being debated until the middle of the second century with people like Marcion. Clearly there were many other apocryphal books at this time. I once had the fun to study the Apocryphal Acts of St Paul and St Thecla, a clearly heretical work of the middle second century. The Scripture was clearly something that emerged over time, in the context of the early church and was separated from apocryphal works on the authority of the church.