No, maybe not, but since I am using Scripture as a reference, and asking you to use it as a reference I don't see your problem?




That may be true, however, it's not a bad thing to look at scripture too. I've been to mass, my grandfather is Catholic, and guess what they read at mass? the bible! *gasp!*. yeah the body is important too, nobody's doubting that, but can't you just talk in scripture for once??

now, I considered those two things, and I have two answers for you, strait out of the bible(scripture):


I hope you know how to find those in the bible, if not you can always use a search engine, I like: blueletterbible but my mom uses biblegateway, and there's others too.

and for the next one, I want to thank Joseph for posting one of the times that scripture does spell out that it's written by God. However, also looking at the response, I think you want a little more, and I'll be glad to do it!





consider also these two things:

(1) In the Old Testament phrases such as "thus saith the Lord," "the word of the Lord came," and "God said" are repeated over 3800 times.


(2)

Where is the law? and where are the prophets?


Ok, God has answered your questions, and I helped little too. So now can you please stop arguing, debating, or whatever you want to call it, and just search the scriptures, and explain to me how to find transubstantiation in them??

P.S. on a side note; I miss Zabby, where did she go?? *unsure*

We're not going to resolve this through just posting opposing verses. Do you really believe I can't make the argument from Scripture that Jesus literally meant transubstantiation? I could make it. I just know it wouldn't resolve anything.



See what I said above.



consider these two things;

1) You are a sinful human prone to error, who will naturally misinterpret Scripture at least in part.

2) You as a Christian accept certain beliefs that are not spelled out in Scripture, such as the inspiration of the Gospel of John.

Now, really consider them, and guess what my response will always be to your use of Scripture.

If you can't figure out, I'll rip what you just said to shreds right here.



I have Biblegateway as a favorite on my link bar. Its my third most visited site.



Which was fail, because "Scripture says its inspired" ≠ Scripture being inspired (because its a circular argument), and it also doesn't tell you what is inspired. Can you find any inspired document for me that you know is inspired not because it claimed to be inspired that tells me that the Gospel of John is inspired?



Are you asking me to accept your interpretation when you are a sinful error prone human?



Very well, but don't consider this a concession to your belief that we can interpret Scripture perfectly.

John 6:26-69

Jesus asserts He is the "bread" seven times.



Notice this; Jesus does not tell the Jews they are interpreting Him wrongly, instead, He emphasizes that "truly, truly," His flesh is the bread of life. Literally, no man has life without having eaten the flesh of Christ.

In v. 66 many disciples are allowed to leave over this teaching. If it was really a simple matter of misinterpretation, why would Jesus not explain it away?

Further, if you think "the flesh profits nothing" means Jesus wasn't speaking about literally eating His own flesh, then what about the fact that the Crucifixion was an act of His flesh? If the flesh really profits nothing in the sense that you mean, then doesn't this mean that His Crucifixion was also for nought?

Rather, it means that understanding comes through the Spirit, not the flesh. See the distinction Jesus actually does draw; "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

Matt. 26:26-28

Mark 14:22,24

Luke 22:19-20

1 Cor. 11:24-25

Note: The act of remembrance does not preclude a real action. In fact, in Scripture, the word "remember" is most often used to detail something happening; i.e. Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." Just see all these examples I got through a quick search.

In Paul's words;

1 Cor. 10:16

1 Cor. 11:23

Note here how Paul was taught by Christ about the Eucharist, which points to its being central.

1 Cor. 11:27-29

Again, unless the bread and wine literally do become the body and blood of Christ, why should it be so grave a matter?

I could keep going if need be to show how an interpretation of transubstantiation is veritable and not a mere misconstruction of Scripture. However, don't think I'm resorting to Scripture because I have nothing else to fall back on. I use Scripture because the Catholic Church teaches that it is inerrant.

Oh, I thought that my part of the discussion was over. Ermm... I haven't really had anything to add to this debate since my last post so . Did you have something you wanted me to answer or something like that?

That's true but it doesn't matter if He said it a thousand times, because He wasn't speaking literally. There's a few reasons why He wasn't speaking literally, but lets start with the obvious one, the one His followers were looking at, it's written in Leviticus that you can't eat anything with blood (Lev 19:26) well, Jesus had blood, so by telling you to eat Him literally, He would have been telling His disciples to sin. Well that doesn't make since because Jesus didn't come to destroy the law, He came to fulfill it! (Matt 5:17) which means not break it. some other things to consider as well, with this point, Jesus didn't only say He was the bread of life, he also said:
I am the vine (John 15:5)
I am the good shepherd. (John 10:11)
I am the light (John 8:12)
I am the door. (John 10:9)
and a lot more! but I decided to stop there, so where do we draw the line? is He a vine? Is He a shepherd? Is He a light? Is He truly a door? No, He is like a vine, shepherd, light, and door, and He is like bread, but He is not actually bread. You're not literally supposed to eat Him you're figuratively supposed to eat Him.




No, you're right He didn't tell them they were misunderstanding Him, but did He ever?? No, so why would you expect Him to? because He lost many followers? so? did He not say: "Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"" (John 6:70) If the others had true faith in Jesus then they wouldn't have left Him, but Jesus chose 12 of them.




That's right! if you don't mind I'm going to quote the scripture you just quoted: "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and [they] are life." (John 6:63) wait, the spirit is life? I thought He said that the bread was life, could He not mean that to eat of the bread, is to listen to His words, which are spirit and they are life?




I don't need to because I agree with you; the action that you're doing in remembrance, is to eat the broken bread, and remember His body which He broke for you on the cross, and to drink the wine in remembrance of the blood which was shed for you. and as with the sabbath, we should continue to eat and drink in remembrance of Him. and I like how you related it to the sabbath, I think that we should also remember that like the sabbath, the communion was created for us, not us for the communion, as is written: (Mark 2:27)




Because of what you're remembering! When you take communion you remember the blood that was shed for you, yes for your sins and the body which was broken for you and it's a grave matter because, it's because of your sins that Jesus the Christ was sent to the grave! if that doesn't make you weep, morn, and grieve, then I don't know what will.




Yes please I would like to hear that!




Well if you believe that the church is infallible, and the church teaches that the bible is infallible, then what was the reason for that whole mess about; was the scripture inspired by God?? Of course it was inspired by God! If it's infallible!! lol was the reason for that just to argue?

and no, I don't believe that it is your last resort! But I thank-you for using it nevertheless, it shows your love.

----------------

and for Zabby, lol it kind of stinks that it's become a debate. I originally wanted it to just be a conversation. :/ Oh well.

and, well I just miss your quotations of scripture, however I noticed after I had posted that I had never replied to your answer, so I guess it was my fault. :/ But now I'll reply if you'll let me? ok you said when they were baptized in water, well, I know scripture very well, but not that well. do you know where it's written when they all got baptized in water?? *unsure* I know of the account where they were baptized by the holy spirit, but I don't know the individual water accounts. but it may not matter, because I have another question; were they saved because they took a bath? or were they saved because Christ was crucified for their sins? (I trust you know what I mean when I say saved? It's like the trinity, it's not found in the bible it's just a faster way for saying what the word entitles)

It happens. I'm sorry it did when you didn't want it to though.


Their baptisims are not expressly stated in the scripture, but they are implied. If we look at John 4:1 "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John." Then that gives us the idea that all of his disciples are baptised with Jesus' baptism, but perhaps a greater case for them having been baptised is found in John 13: 10 "Jesus said to him, Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.' " I'm assumign the has bathed part means a baptism. I don't know what else it could mean. It can't be bathed in the blood of Christ because Christ had yet to die, and then they wouldn't have been clean yet. Unless you can think of something else this is refering too, I'd say it would show that the disciples were baptised.


I'd say both. They are cleansed through their belief in Christ to partake in the action (baptism) in which he institued in order to cleanse us from our sins. Honestly, without baptism being the gateway for one to be saved, I do not understand why Jesus would make it such a big deal. I mean, if you only had a few years to preach what you want to preach, would you really push such a legalistic ritual if it was nothing but a symbolic action and didn't really do anything? I just do not understand that view of batpsim.

In essence, the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior believeing that He died for our sins and resurrected is not enough. We must be baptized with water and eat bread which is literally His flesh and drink wine which is literally His blood. Oh, and it has to be done through the Catholic Church, otherwise it doesn't count.

DDOG, I have one question; how do you know your interpretation is right?

How do you know your's is? Hence the conversation. You have absolute faith in the roman Catholic church, I have absolute faith that the bible is the inspired word of God.

In case you didn't catch that, I base my interpretation off the scriptures, and cross reference with the scriptures, and get a big picture which you call an interpretation. However, I might have missed, or overlooked something, so I wanted to ask a brother or sister what they thought. So I would enjoy it if you continued to speak with me.

Now on a side note; I want to say that I probably won't be able to convince you that communion is symbolic. and, you probably won't be able to convince me that Communion not symbolic. For as I said before the point is not to win (or convert), if it were I would have posted on the debate board, but the point is to gain more understanding on the subject. Because if it were to win, then you probably would have won a long time ago! Because in that case it's not based on who has more knowledge on the subject, it's based on who is better at debating.

I don't know that my interpretation is correct. While I'm sure of the conclusion, I'm not necessarily sure of the means to my conclusion, because its based off of my own thought.



I can supplement with additional information past the mere interpretation of Scripture. In fact, I would say the interpretation of Scripture is not even my forté; while I am good at the use of Scripture, and probably better than most on this board, I don't really depend on it too much for the obvious reason that we will only ever have our different interpretations of it, and that I think its actually a very weak argument principle on that basis.

I can point to the fact of our disagreement and ask you how either of us is to know whether we are right; a discussion between opposing sides is supposed to come to a conclusion, is it not? I'm not a believer in false ecumenism, in which we just talk without resolve. I am quite interested in strengthening my own beliefs by seeing how well my argument fares against yours, having my unchallenged beliefs and unwitting assumptions challenged. Likewise, for this to happen I must return discussion in the same. Hence, I care more to challenge you here than just to explain. While explanation is important to understanding, its quite obvious you understand what I do believe; the other part is to help you understand why I believe what I believe, and hopefully show you that your reasoning is insufficient, and to be frank, wrong.

Why do I believe that the Eucharist as consecrated by a priest is the true body and blood of Christ?

Because the Church has always taught this.

That is the strongest reason I have for believing transubstantiation. If it was up to only my interpretation, I would probably try my best to explain it away as nothing more than symbolism, and, in fact, I previously have. I have not always believed in transubstantiation.

To you, I say that a belief in communion's being merely symbolic has not at all times been taught by the Church, and that, in fact, it is relatively recent. The first real proponent of communion being merely symbolic was a theologian in the 11th c. Meanwhile, it had always been assumed before this time by the Church that the Eucharist truly was the body and blood of Christ.

Hmm, it's been around for a long time you say, well you know that, that doesn't make it correct. However I know that, that is a good reason to believe it, because that's one of the reasons I use to support the bible's reliability. Well, don't get me wrong, I do love to argue! and am very good at it! But I don't like to resort to that, because things seem to go off topic when you do that. :/ Hmm, Well, I can answer one of your points, you said:



The point is to gain knowledge, now God willing, it may get to a conclusion! But what I'm saying is that it's unlikely, for two reasons, the first is that, you will probably win the argument about the history of things, because I don't know much on that subject. However I think that I will win the Debate on scripture base, because I do know that subject. but what do we get to then? Well if alls fair, we'll get to a draw, so nether is swayed. You can see the logic in that, but would it be better to never have the conversation? I say no, because in the process of nether winning, both have gotten stronger, kind of like a fencing match.
Now, I've already made my move, but seeing no response as of yet, I'll do the honorable thing and wait for you to pick up your sword, before I attack again, though I am tempted to.


However, on a side note, you told me history about yourself, so it seems only fair to tell you a little of my story. ok, well I always ask questions, actually I currently have 14 others pending, which I would love to get to eventually. but this was one that I ask, when in my reading of the bible I happen to glance over at what was written in John 6, and being a bit confused, I wanted to ask about that, now I've always been taught that the communion is symbolic, however this seemed to argue with that, so I wanted to question it, but I was just about to go on a trip to my grandparents house for the summer, so I couldn't ask anyone at church, so I found a chat web site for Christians, and posted the question, expecting a simple answer, that was not what I got, I got argument, and to cut I long story short, half-way in between it (the conversation) I thought that I was wrong, and was about to go to the Catholic church to get confirmed! But, then I hit my first controversy, and after that they just came flooding in. so now I stand with many points which I would like to challenge you with, but I was not expecting the move from a Christian, of denying the scriptures as a reliable source! But seeing that it can't be any less reliable then the roman Catholic church is, and remembering that it was written by historians didn't make me stop for too long.

p.s. lol that turned out longer then I thought it would! My apologies.

p.p.s. lol now can we stop talking about why we're talking, and continue talking about what we're talking about? (talking talking talking talking... lol sorry I had to get that out of my system! xD )

Although, I sense some sacrasum in your post, I do agree with thist conclusion. One thing I would like to add is that the Church does not claim to have a monopoly on Salvation. Only God has that. He can save whomever he wants. Although we are 100% sure (through the revelation of saints) that our way is the path to heaven, we make no comments on other ways because that is totally up to God and God alone. Heaven is his and only he can decide who does and does not get there.

You believe that what you believe is 100% correct. Just as I believe what I believe to be 100% correct. And explain other paths? You mean the acceptance of Christ, doing missions, loving our neighbor and praising the Lord but not calling yourself "Catholic"? Would you consider that another path? Look how much good has come out of Protestantism, so much about the love of God and Jesus Christ being told to multitudes of people. I'm sorry, but this is not just "another path" it's Christians going out there and spreading the good news of Jesus Christ, which is the right path.

Hmm, it's been around for a long time you say, well you know that, that doesn't make it correct. However I know that, that is a good reason to believe it, because that's one of the reasons I use to support the bible's reliability. Well, don't get me wrong, I do love to argue! and am very good at it! But I don't like to resort to that, because things seem to go off topic when you do that. :/ Hmm, Well, I can answer one of your points, you said:



The point is to gain knowledge, now God willing, it may get to a conclusion! But what I'm saying is that it's unlikely, for two reasons, the first is that, you will probably win the argument about the history of things, because I don't know much on that subject. However I think that I will win the Debate on scripture base, because I do know that subject. but what do we get to then? Well if alls fair, we'll get to a draw, so nether is swayed. You can see the logic in that, but would it be better to never have the conversation? I say no, because in the process of nether winning, both have gotten stronger, kind of like a fencing match.
Now, I've already made my move, but seeing no response as of yet, I'll do the honorable thing and wait for you to pick up your sword, before I attack again, though I am tempted to.


However, on a side note, you told me history about yourself, so it seems only fair to tell you a little of my story. ok, well I always ask questions, actually I currently have 14 others pending, which I would love to get to eventually. but this was one that I ask, when in my reading of the bible I happen to glance over at what was written in John 6, and being a bit confused, I wanted to ask about that, now I've always been taught that the communion is symbolic, however this seemed to argue with that, so I wanted to question it, but I was just about to go on a trip to my grandparents house for the summer, so I couldn't ask anyone at church, so I found a chat web site for Christians, and posted the question, expecting a simple answer, that was not what I got, I got argument, and to cut I long story short, half-way in between it (the conversation) I thought that I was wrong, and was about to go to the Catholic church to get confirmed! But, then I hit my first controversy, and after that they just came flooding in. so now I stand with many points which I would like to challenge you with, but I was not expecting the move from a Christian, of denying the scriptures as a reliable source! But seeing that it can't be any less reliable then the roman Catholic church is, and remembering that it was written by historians didn't make me stop for too long.

p.s. lol that turned out longer then I thought it would! My apologies.

p.p.s. lol now can we stop talking about why we're talking, and continue talking about what we're talking about? (talking talking talking talking... lol sorry I had to get that out of my system! xD )

-shrug- this is your opinion. I do not mean to try to devalue your religion by praticing my own, if you feel that way, nor do I wish to try to convert you. Yes, good fruits come out of the Protestent faith. Yes, good fruits come out of the Catholic faith, but the fact of the matter is that we can not be both right. Our theologies are far too contrary. If what Catholics teach is true, then you guys are missing out on such a large part of faith. If what Prostents teach is true then we have broken many a commandment and based our entire faith on something that is a lie. I'm not here to try to force my opinions on anyone, just explain them, so please, once again, unless anyone has direct questions about me concering Communion/The Eucharist (which this thread is about) I will once again dissapear from this thread.

Right so lets get back to the original question, we'll deal hopefully with that one another time.

Ok, so Zabby, when I ask you that question I completely spaced about the disagreement that we have about being saved, so I'm going to try and avoid that question if possible for now. Ok, do you believe that it is only through Jesus Christ' crucified and resurrection that anyone is saved? We disagree on whether it is by Him alone that anyone is saved, but, whether we only have to believe that, or we have to believe that and do something else, it is only through His crucification and resurrection that anyone can be saved, correct?
If Christ did not die for our sins, there would be no remission of sins, right?

@ AquinasD


I want to test your knowledge here.

I've been trained to fight with the Sword, I know the art well. However when you road up, you came on a horse with a long spear, you challenged me to get on my horse and fight you with a spear, but I've never been trained to use a spear, I own one, but what good is that? I would be like a child with a stick, so I refused and ask you to step off your horse, and you refused, perhaps you haven't been trained as well as I have in using the Sword, or you simply know you'll win if you get me to use the spear. Well the argument went on for a bit, then you got down from your horse, and drew you sword, I took a swipe at you, but you stepped back instead of defending, then I ask you to step forward and fight! and you have remained silent. Why?

Well this match can end three ways, 1: I claim victory, because you refused to fight me. 2. you start fighting, and then we'll see, (I see bit of training in you, but you don't have any confidence in your Sword). And then there's a 3rd way: you get back on your horse, and come at me with your long spear, and because I have absolute faith in my Sword, I will try and beat you regardless, with my Sword, because I think I can take you. After all my Sword is sharper then any two edged Sword.

My test is this: can you decipher what I just said? or will you leave thinking I'm a complete nut case? lol

Because the swords are made of paper.

I can throw Bible verses at you, you can sling one back. When it comes down to our mere interpretation, there can be no ultimate resolve to our differences. The history of Protestantism attests to this.



The fact of the matter is, even if you take your best swipes with your sword at me, I know your sword is immaterial. You couldn't harm me with it, I couldn't harm you with it. You know the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" Well, "History and logic may prove something, but your inability to know prevents you from using Scripture against me."

It's really a very simple reason; you don't know that your interpretation of Scripture is right. You don't know that mine isn't. I don't know whether mine is.

Pitching Bible verses against each other will be as useful as using pretend swords. The fact of the matter is, I'm telling you to use a spear because the spear actually exists.



It was quite clever. En garde.

Jesus Christ is the only way that anyone can be saved. Through his sacrifice and death we are redeemed. We are made new in creations. We are cleansed by the blood of the lamb. If Jesus had not come and had not died, we would have no access to heaven. If he did not come, we would still be stuck preforming shadowy sacrifices of lambs and goats in order to mirror the worship of the angles in heaven, but because of Christ we have our one true sacrifice and we may worship with the angles and the Saints in heaven. Only through him. Did I assure you enough that I believe that salvation comes only through Christ?

That's true but I'm not going to throw them back; if I myself aren't convinced of them, what reason does that have? So with that, eventually you'll have to stop throwing them back at each other. right? However if you're going to use what the church says, well shoot, the church has been around for over 2,000 years! multiply 365 times 2,000, that's about how many sermons you'll come up with. If we debate on those grounds we'll never get to an end!

Oh btw, since this is friendly conversation, I know I'm not risking offense to ask you this, but wasn't the church founded on the scriptures? *unsure* Moses' law and all that? (I truly don't know, but I know that you'll probably know. )




You know I find that weired, because if truly words can't hurt, then why in the world, would Hebrews 4:12 refer to the Word like this: "For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Idk why, that just seems painful to me?




That may be true it may not. let me ask you this, did Satan take the scriptures out of context, when He tempted Jesus in the desert?





Are you trying to say that the word of God doesn't? or that the bible doesn't exist? or, that the apostles spoke as they were led by their gut?
What exactly are you going for here? *unsure*



Thanks; I spoke as I was moved by the Holy spirit.

AMEN!!!! and yes you convinced me, I was already convinced, but some how you managed to convince me even more! lol
OK, so in light of that, here's the problem I found. If all it is His blood that we need to be saved, then weren't we all saved when baby Jesus was born, and His blood coursed through His veins? If He's referring to the literal red gooey stuff? Well no, that doesn't make since, so I said, well maybe not just His blood but you need to drink His blood. but I came up with a harder problem; because it's written: "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" not; is going to have, but already posses. So here's the real big thing, Jesus said Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and if He was referring to the literal red gooey stuff, then that means, that, get this; The apostles were saved at the last supper, before, Christ's death and resurrection.
could you please explain that to me?

The Church is founded upon Christ. To propose that the Church is founded upon anything else is sheer heresy.

The Scriptures are founded by the Church, however.



The word of God may be sharper than any two-edged sword, but your interpretation isn't a sword.



Seeing as he was proposing an interpretation contrary to the interpretation God was making, then the conclusion that Satan was using Scriptures the wrong way is a foregone conclusion.



I'm saying the force behind your interpretation doesn't exist, because I know its only your interpretation and I know you don't know that your interpretation is right.

Yes. lol. I can explain that, and I'm not Catholic.
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. - Hebrews 9:22 NIV

Exactly: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Jesus hadn't been crucified yet, (He hadn't shed any blood yet) so How could the last supper be His literal body and blood, if He hadn't given those yet? I'm going to restate my point:

So if the 12 were eating and drinking His literal blood and body, then they had eternal life (they were saved) before there had been shedding of blood?

thanks for pointing that out, now it doesn't only go against common sense, now it goes against scripture too!



but as far as I'm aware, the church hadn't been established in the early days of Genesis, and yet the book of Genesis is a part of the scriptures? *unsure*
I would love to be proved wrong here, after all, without correction how will anyone grow?



So some words CAN hurt?
and just for the record; the scriptures aren't interpreted until you interpret them.




right but is that the only way, that we'll ever know if the scriptures were taken out of context? If God says different? if that were true, then we should just toss out the old scriptures, because what good are they? or is there another way to figure that out?

Are you saying Jesus, who is God the Son, was unable? Don't think you're arguing for common sense when you're arguing that God couldn't do something logically possible.

It would only seem unScriptural on the basis of a lack of knowledge of Eucharist theology. When we partake of the Eucharist, we are drawn into the mystery (experience) of the Trinitarian life. The Apostles here were partaking of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and were drawn into Him closer than any other earthly relationship could possibly be.

Further, of course God isn't bounded by time, which I would think is obvious.



The purpose of Scripture to Christians is only known through the Church. Remember, Jesus didn't say "I establish the Church on the [existing] Scriptures," but "I establish the Church on the Rock." Either way, its established on Himself, the cornerstone.



Well yes, but do you really have that much hubris to believe your interpretation is equivocal to Scripture?



There is another way to figure it out, because we haven't been abandoned. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Church. Hence, the interpretation of the Church will be the true interpretation.

However, I will point out that the Church isn't whoever claims to be the Church.

This post has been edited by AquinasD: Nov 5 2009, 04:37 PM

You're partly right, However no, I'm not arguing that He 'can't' do it, I'm arguing that He 'wouldn't' do it. Why? Because I serve a wise God. Not an idiot, why would He choose to save them before there was atonement, would that not be unjust? Is that not against His own nature? Find me one scripture, that says He is unjust, find me one scripture that says He Goes against His own nature. Find me one reason why He would do something like that?
I'm waiting...





you're right, and again, I'm not arguing about His cannot, and cannot ability. but on His why and why not. For if there is no reason why He would do it, then why would He do it?
Better yet, why would anyone think that He was doing that? *unsure*





Right, lol I found it funny, didn't someone say earlier, (it might have been you) that peter didn't claim to be scripture? lol I found it funny that you should quote that when it is written: "And I also say to 'you' that 'you' are Peter, and on this 'rock' I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Is it not to Peter that Jesus is speaking? Is it not about Peter that He is speaking? and what does peter say? (I think it's funny; the Holy spirit led me to read 1st and 2nd peter last night, and now I'm talking about them. )
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20,21) (Also, I learned about a year ago; you should look up the definition of: "prophecy", It's not referring to the prophets telling the future only, because that's not what Prophecy is, it's referring to the prophets, speaking any word on truth, which, that's all the prophets did, because that's what a prophet is.)

So Peter, the Rock says the scriptures, are infallible, and completely trustworthy. lol you should also read the rest of 2 Peter, because next He talks about the false teachers in the church.

play nice please!




If it was taught to me by the Holy spirit, then yes, by the scriptures, I am "incontrovertible". lol





Then who is the church?
btw, I never could understand why anyone could believe that the church is infallible? Because infallible means to never fail, and when you sin you fail to God, and the church is made up of the body of Christ, which is made up of people. So you're putting your complete faith, in people who, by nature have sinned, the priest has sinned, even the pope himself, has sinned, to say other wise is to make God a lier.
I trust the scripture, because it never lied, and trust the Holy spirit, because He never sinned. How can you put this faith in the church, that has done these things? *unsure*



looking forward to your reply ttyl.