[A Follower]

Acts 17:10-11
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Do you see that? Reading and believing the Bible is more noble than listening to a self-styled pope who has no biblical base at all. Nor are his "infallible" edicts worth anything:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

So with that out of the way let's see what the Bible actually says about the trinity:

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Isaiah 48:11
For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

There are of course many more passages in the Bible that proof the Trinity, if you aren't convinced yet I am more than willing to look them up.

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

You are quite right when you say that cathlicks made up most of the rituals and dogma's they profess to believe in, this just isn't one of them. How you manage to distort that into proof that we should believe in a pope as well is quite incomprehensible to me. It certainly isn't theft, Jesus implores us to spread the Word far and wide, you're just confused because the cathlick church through happenstance believes in something Christians believe in as well (I use the word happenstance because I'm reasonably sure no cathlick has ever opened a Bible, their beliefs aren't based on the Bible, so any similarities have to be coincidental).

It is important to note that the Scripture quoted here proves
- that the Bible is important for Christians;
- that nothing can be added or removed from it;

Together with the fact that the catholics have a habit of making up rules that are not in the Bible (praying to statues of Jesus, thumbing rosary beads, praying to people who are not God, etc) should be proof for you that being cathlick has nothing to do with being Christian. If you want to see Heaven for yourself one day you might want to consider joining us. And as if Heaven isn't enough for you, there are even more reasons to become a True Christian™: you won't have to do any of that perverted stuff with your priests anymore!

Reading the Bible, putting your faith in Jesus and a proper baptizing will do the trick.

[landoverlover]

You know, some of you people sound like atheists at times and I sometimes wonder if there is not another agenda at work.

Wow. Of all the outrageous things you've said, that's the worst. It's bad enough that you condemn all non-catholics to hell, now you're accusing the members of Landover of being ATHEISTS? Incredible.

[Fire&Brimstone]

It upsets me that people can not try, even if they dont understand the good book

[The Cantabrian]

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters

More fundamentally, what's the point of the Bible at all, if God teaches through men, not through a book?

The Bible is vitally important, but it has been put together using LANGUAGE. LANGUAGE is not like a mathematical equation; by definition it requires interpretation. So what I am saying is the Bible is only ONE source of teaching us about the nature of God.

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters

Let me reiterate a point that I've made before and that you haven't answered: Unlike you, we have enough faith in God that we trust Him to have made His point clearly, with no need for "clarification" through either a boy-touching pontiff or a magic-undie-wearing "prophet."

Same point as above. The Bible is not at all clear about many subjects. What, for example, does it saying about genetic cloning?

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters

Finally, if it's the "same difference," how do you know that you're right and that the lemonade-drinkers in Utah are wrong?

I don't know. But I do have faith.

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

Because that's how you papists play the game.

1. Open thread
2. Get ass Biblically handed to you on a platter
3. Ignore all scripture given to you
4. Go to step 1

Every papist that comes onto this board does the same thing, and every thread is the same thing over and over and over. Since we're arguing the same arguments, why can't they be kept in the same thread? Do you not like when we point out how wrong you are according to scripture or even the Vaticans website? Does that upset you, so you think if you start fresh we'll just forget all that stuff?

I don't think that is the true reason at all. It's just you do not want people highlighting certain practices and doctrines of your church which are contrary to scripture.

Originally Posted by A Follower

Acts 17:10-11
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Do you see that? Reading and believing the Bible is more noble than listening to a self-styled pope who has no biblical base at all.

What??? The passage doesn't say that at all, it just says the people were more noble. This had nothing to do with reading the Bible. And besides we catholics also 'search the scriptures daily'.

Originally Posted by A Follower

So with that out of the way let's see what the Bible actually says about the trinity:

And you draw trinitarian doctrine from that? Sure, these scriptures SUPPORT the trinity, but they do not spell it out. Why didn't God just use the word 'Trinity'? The answer is because these were writings of men which required interpretation.

Originally Posted by A Follower

It is important to note that the Scripture quoted here proves
- that the Bible is important for Christians;
- that nothing can be added or removed from it;

I have no issue with your first proposition at all. But adding / removing??? You are trying to use the Bible in a circular fashion. The canon was not even settled when those verses were written! Besides, we catholics regard the canon as closed so we are not adding or taking anything away from it.

Originally Posted by A Follower

Reading the Bible, putting your faith in Jesus and a proper baptizing will do the trick.

Actually Matthew 25 says you have to do quite a few other things. Or else you are for the burning.

Originally Posted by landoverlover

Wow. Of all the outrageous things you've said, that's the worst. It's bad enough that you condemn all non-catholics to hell, now you're accusing the members of Landover of being ATHEISTS? Incredible.

I didn't make that accusation, I just said that I have heard atheists saying similar things in my time.

Originally Posted by Fire&Brimstone

It upsets me that people can not try, even if they dont understand the good book

I read the Bible daily, and I would be willing to bet I know it a lot better than you do. I am considering studying for the priesthood after I complete my phd.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

The Bible is vitally important, but it has been put together using LANGUAGE. LANGUAGE is not like a mathematical equation; by definition it requires interpretation. So what I am saying is the Bible is only ONE source of teaching us about the nature of God.

The Bible is vitally important, but God doesn't teach through a book. Which is it? Also, regarding language, how much interpretation does the owner's manual of an appliance require? Interpretation and reading comprehension are two different things.

Same point as above. The Bible is not at all clear about many subjects. What, for example, does it saying about genetic cloning?

What does it say about genetics at all? Hint: Genesis ch. 30.

I don't know. But I do have faith.

Guess what: So do the Mormons. Anyway, if you followed the Bible instead of Romanism, you'd know:

1 John 5:13: These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

I don't think that is the true reason at all. It's just you do not want people highlighting certain practices and doctrines of your church which are contrary to scripture.

Such as?

What??? The passage doesn't say that at all, it just says the people were more noble. This had nothing to do with reading the Bible. And besides we catholics also 'search the scriptures daily'.

The passage says the way in which they were more noble: They tested the teachings of men against God's Word.

I have no issue with your first proposition at all. But adding / removing??? You are trying to use the Bible in a circular fashion. The canon was not even settled when those verses were written! Besides, we catholics regard the canon as closed so we are not adding or taking anything away from it.

You're adding your "sacred oral tradition" to it.

Actually Matthew 25 says you have to do quite a few other things. Or else you are for the burning.

Do you honestly believe that we've never read that chapter?

I read the Bible daily, and I would be willing to bet I know it a lot better than you do.

Don't tell; show.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

What??? The passage doesn't say that at all, it just says the people were more noble. This had nothing to do with reading the Bible. And besides we catholics also 'search the scriptures daily'.

If you Catholics are so keen on searching the scriptures daily, then why didn't you ever translate the Bible into languages other than Latin so ordinary people could search the scriptures for themselves?

[The Cantabrian]

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters

The Bible is vitally important, but God doesn't teach through a book. Which is it? Also, regarding language, how much interpretation does the owner's manual of an appliance require? Interpretation and reading comprehension are two different things.

What does it say about genetics at all? Hint: Genesis ch. 30.

My point exactly. How far should we interpret such passages? Does the selective breeding discussed in Genesis mean that we should be cloning animals today? And, if so, should we allow it for human beings and so-called "stem-cell research"?
The Bible does not spell out the answers, so we need holy and wise men to provide leadership.

With respect, I think your other questions will just lead to us going around in circles, so I don't think I need to answer them. It all comes down to the above point in any case: scripture alone is insufficient. Texts written in ancient languages thousands of years ago cannot be compared with a modern day instruction manual. That is precisely why the Lord Jesus established his church, and appointed St Peter as the first pope.

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

If you Catholics are so keen on searching the scriptures daily, then why didn't you ever translate the Bible into languages other than Latin so ordinary people could search the scriptures for themselves?

There were many advantages to keeping the Bible preserved in Latin. It was the only language that was widely understood in medieval Europe, and as such ensured consistency and certainty. Personally I love Latin masses. They provide a sense of mystery and reverence that exceeds the standard Sunday mass!

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

There were many advantages to keeping the Bible preserved in Latin. It was the only language that was widely understood in medieval Europe, and as such ensured consistency and certainty. Personally I love Latin masses. They provide a sense of mystery and reverence that exceeds the standard Sunday mass!

Yes, it's lovely when you have no understanding of the World of God and awful convenient that your priest is only person who can tell you what it means? Just be a good little Catholic sheep and ignore the screaming from the rectory.

[Levi Jones]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

With respect, I think your other questions will just lead to us going around in circles, so I don't think I need to answer them. It all comes down to the above point in any case: scripture alone is insufficient. Texts written in ancient languages thousands of years ago cannot be compared with a modern day instruction manual. That is precisely why the Lord Jesus established his church, and appointed St Peter as the first pope.

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

There were many advantages to keeping the Bible preserved in Latin. It was the only language that was widely understood in medieval Europe, and as such ensured consistency and certainty. Personally I love Latin masses. They provide a sense of mystery and reverence that exceeds the standard Sunday mass!

Which is it, Brian? And no, Latin was not widely understood except among the elite.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by landoverlover

Your church sold remission of sins for cash. CASH.

The Catholics like to forget this part of their popish history. It is true that God looks with more favor upon Gold and Platinum Tithers™ than He does upon the selfish poor, but you can't buy the right to sin.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

There were many advantages to keeping the Bible preserved in Latin. It was the only language that was widely understood in medieval Europe, and as such ensured consistency and certainty. Personally I love Latin masses. They provide a sense of mystery and reverence that exceeds the standard Sunday mass!

Is that so? I particularly like #6, banning the publication of ANY book not approved by Mother (Nanny?) Church.

During the period when the Roman Catholic Church was in power, she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages, even though most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated.

Consider some of the laws Rome made against Bible translation. These began to be made in the 13th century and were in effect through the 19th.

(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding “that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal” (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent “declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).

(2) The Council of Toulouse (1229) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). This council ordered that the bishops should appoint in each parish “one priest and two or three laics, who should engage upon oath to make a rigorous search after all heretics and their abettors, and for this purpose should visit every house from the garret to the cellar, together with all subterraneous places where they might conceal themselves” (Thomas M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, 1856, p. 82). They also searched for the illegal Bibles.

(3) The Council of Tarragona (1234) “ORDERED ALL VERNACULAR VERSIONS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BISHOP TO BE BURNED” (Paris Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 1929, 162).

(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen “PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS” (M’Crie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them.

(5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand: “WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial” (John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundel’s estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible: “This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind … crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue” (Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45).

(6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luther’s efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. “THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year” (Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages).

(7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor.

Following is a quote from Trent: “…IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO PRINT OR TO HAVE PRINTED ANY BOOKS WHATSOEVER DEALING WITH SACRED DOCTRINAL MATTERS WITHOUT THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, OR IN THE FUTURE TO SELL THEM, OR EVEN TO HAVE THEM IN POSSESSION, UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST BEEN EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY, UNDER PENALTY OF ANATHEMA AND FINE prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran” (Fourth session, April 8, 1546, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Translated by H.J. Schroeder, pp. 17-19).

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

My point exactly. How far should we interpret such passages? Does the selective breeding discussed in Genesis mean that we should be cloning animals today? And, if so, should we allow it for human beings and so-called "stem-cell research"?
The Bible does not spell out the answers, so we need holy and wise men to provide leadership.

How closely did you read that chapter? I'm guessing not very closely, since you seem to have missed the point entirely. On whether we need someone to interpret the Bible for us, I'll grant that you need someone to interpret it for you.

With respect, I think your other questions will just lead to us going around in circles, so I don't think I need to answer them. It all comes down to the above point in any case: scripture alone is insufficient. Texts written in ancient languages thousands of years ago cannot be compared with a modern day instruction manual. That is precisely why the Lord Jesus established his church, and appointed St Peter as the first pope.

But you've admitted that you don't know whether you're right or the Mormons are right. Elsewhere, you've admitted that you consider the Vatican to have misstated its own teachings and have taken it upon yourself to e-mail them what you consider to be the correct interpretation.

It appears that you have no standard at all for what to believe, other than whatever strikes your fancy. I think you'd be more intellectually honest if you renounced your allegiance to the Roman institution and started your own church, the Church of Brianity, where at least you can be honest about making it up as you go along.