Scriptures That Prove The Trinity

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 December 2009 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1260817746' post='2020447']
You may say that most emphatically if you wish, but you are wrong, the Hebrew word "almah" means a young woman of marriageable age, and that is why the Jewish translators of the LXX chose to use the Greek word I noted in my earlier post (i.e., παρθένο ς, which means virgin). As the Church Fathers pointed out, there is no much of a sign in a married woman conceiving a Child, which happens all the time, but there certainly is a sign when a virgin conceives a child.
[/quote]


We're going round in circles. There is in Hebrew a particular word for 'virgin' and Isaiah doesn't use it. Mary did not have to be a virgin to fulfill the verse in Isaiah. As for your last sentence, that reminds me of the old adage, "Dog bites man isn't news, but man biting dog, is".

I am struggling with a way to show that Jewish thought rejects utterly, as a bunch of fairy tales, what is written in the New Testament, without being offensive, which certainly isn't my intention. I respect anyone who has a sincere belief, even an atheist, although I can't understand him. But Christians [obviously] take as the basis of their faith a document which other faiths dismiss as nonsense. What does a Christian think of the Mahabharata, for example? A nice collection of folk tales? A Hindu would be deeply offended. A Jew, hearing that a Christian backs his belief with "proof" that a certain text which a Jew knows to be a creation of man, and not a direct Divine Revelation from God, would think "and if you believe that, there's a bridge going to Brooklyn I'd like to sell you". Your view is blinkered by your education [some might say brainwashing; all religions do it to a certain degree] that only a certain belief can be correct. What I'm trying to say is that there are other ways to think, and they are all valid.

I once went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art with an Israeli whose parents came from a Middle Eastern country, and who was not familiar with either Western history or art. We went from room to room, from medieval to Renaissance to Baroque art, looking at a large number of representations of the Madonna and Child. He got rather bored, and began saying, "Oh another one...yet another one..." until I noticed that he was looking at a painting of Demeter and Persephone. To his eyes, there was[i] absolutely no difference between the Christian images and the pagan ones, because he'd never been indoctrinated in the symbolic language of Christianity.
[/i]
I think we have to be able to step out of our skins and see the world as others of other beliefs see it, to understand why their belief system suits them. This doesn't diminish personal faith, but it does make one aware that others are also on a spiritual quest, even if the methods can be radically different. All ways are leading to the same goal, IMHO.

I am not a Christian, but I would very much like to have an experience of conventual life [anyone see the BBC program "The Convent" a couple of years ago?]. It is the [i]spirituality[/i] of the life, not the specific religion, that interests me.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1260819103' post='2020462']
We're going round in circles. There is in Hebrew a particular word for 'virgin' and Isaiah doesn't use it. Mary did not have to be a virgin to fulfill the verse in Isaiah. As for your last sentence, that reminds me of the old adage, "Dog bites man isn't news, but man biting dog, is".[/quote]
Thanks I already have a good lexicon, so I know that the Hebrew word "almah" can be used to indicate many different things, and that there is a specific word for "virgin" in Hebrew that was not used in the text, but that does not change the fact that the Jewish LXX translators used the Greek word "parthenos" centuries before the Christian era, and it is the LXX that is quoted throughout the New Testament (including Matt. 1:23), which is why the LXX is the scriptural text used by majority of Eastern Christians.

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1260819103' post='2020462']
I am struggling with a way to show that Jewish thought rejects utterly, as a bunch of fairy tales, what is written in the New Testament, without being offensive, which certainly isn't my intention. . . .[/quote]
I already know that that is the position of most Jews.

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1260819103' post='2020462']
I once went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art with an Israeli whose parents came from a Middle Eastern country, and who was not familiar with either Western history or art. We went from room to room, from medieval to Renaissance to Baroque art, looking at a large number of representations of the Madonna and Child. He got rather bored, and began saying, "Oh another one...yet another one..." until I noticed that he was looking at a painting of Demeter and Persephone. To his eyes, there was[i] absolutely no difference between the Christian images and the pagan ones, because he'd never been indoctrinated in the symbolic language of Christianity.
[/i]
I think we have to be able to step out of our skins and see the world as others of other beliefs see it, to understand why their belief system suits them. This doesn't diminish personal faith, but it does make one aware that others are also on a spiritual quest, even if the methods can be radically different. All ways are leading to the same goal, IMHO.[/quote]
I have stepped as far out of my skin as I care to. I was raised Methodist, but converted to Roman Catholicism after reading the Church Fathers for eight years, and spent 17 years in the Roman Church before becoming and Eastern Catholic more than four years ago. My theology today is nothing like it was in the past, and although many people at this forum like to call me closed minded, I have probably changed more theologically than any of them ever will.

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1260819103' post='2020462']
I am not a Christian, but I would very much like to have an experience of conventual life [anyone see the BBC program "The Convent" a couple of years ago?]. It is the [i]spirituality[/i] of the life, not the specific religion, that interests me.
[/quote]
It is possible to visit a monastery for a period of time. Perhaps you should look into doing that.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[reyb]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='13 December 2009 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1260739681' post='2019809']
There seems to be alot of confusion among the muslims about our beleif in the Trinity and the Divinty of Christ. They claim the Bible doesnt directly point these out which is untrue and I will prove it with direct quotes from The Holy Bible, New and Old Testaments. Anybody else who wants to contribute scripture quotes that prove these two doctrines please feel free. But remember we are only going to use scripture here to refute the claim that the Bible doesnt teach these two doctrines.


[b][size="4"]TRINITY[/size][/b]

[u]Genesis Chapter 1 Verses 26-27[/u]

26 And he said: Let us make man to [b]our [/b]image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 [b]And God created man to his own image[/b]: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

[color="#FF0000"]"Let us make man to our image"... God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity.[/color]


[u]1John 5:7[/u]

"And there are [b]three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost[/b]. And these [b]three[/b] are [b]one[/b]."



[b][size="4"]Divinity of Christ[/size][/b]


[u]Gospel of John 20:27-31[/u]

27 Then he saith to Thomas: "Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: "[b]My Lord, and my God[/b]." 29 Jesus saith to him: "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, [b]thou hast believed[/b]: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." 30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.


[u]Gospel of John 1:1-5[/u]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, [b]and the Word was God[/b]. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.



There are many more but I will be nice and let others participate(code language for "Im lazy")
[/quote]

Question: Are Holy Prophets believers of Holy Trinity? (Before we go to our discussion regarding our subject verses).

[Damiano]

*["The Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture."]

***You are in error. It is the Holy Ghost who is the ONLY authentic interpreter of Scripture: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the COMFORTER will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" [John 16:7]. The Holy Ghost is called the COMFORTER (i.e., Paraclete) in [John 14:26;15:26;16:7]. Here and in other passages in John...the Lord Jesus Christ teaches that the Holy Ghost (1)will indwell Christians [John 14:16-17]; (2)will help the disciples recall the events of His life [John 14:26]; (3)will convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment [John 16:7-11] and; (4)will teach believers the TRUTH [John 15:26;16:13-15].

The Catholic magisterium is a collection of old unregenerate men who make pronouncements which are CONTRARY to Scripture and, as such, are FALSE. The ONLY inspired prounouncements are those contained in the Word of God (i.e., the Scriptures)...and Christians don't need unregenerate men to tell them what they mean for Christians have the Holy Ghost IN them for they are BORN of the Spirit og God (i.e., born-again) [John 3:1-21].

Damiano

[Arpy]

If the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture (which none of your quotes up there explicitly state), then how do you account for the widely varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views among Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i]?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='13 December 2009 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1260739681' post='2019809']
[u]1John 5:7[/u]

"And there are [b]three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost[/b]. And these [b]three[/b] are [b]one[/b]."
[/quote]
What you have quoted here is generally held to be a marginal gloss which crept into the manuscript tradition via copyist error some time in the middle ages. In the sixteenth century Erasmus was pressured into including it in his collation of the Greek New Testament which became the basis of many translations for several centuries (including the King James and the Luther Bible).

The early Greek manuscripts do not include this verse and it is not quoted or expounded upon by the fathers. Here is a copy of Erasmus' second edition [url="http://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=/var/www/tkl-portal-neo//metadata/b/9/1/attached-metadata-106-0000100/268979.pdf&pageno=256&pagestart=1&width=595&height=420&maxpage=277&lang=en"]Greek New Testament[/url] (c. 1524) which clearly omits the comma (the controversies that led to its later inclusion are well documented). If anyone would like to peep the applicable pericope in some early Greek manuscripts here you go: [url="http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=55&chapter=5&lid=en&side=r&verse=7&zoomSlider=0"]Codex Sinaiticus[/url]; [url="http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_02/GA02_086a.jpg"]Codex Alexandrinus[/url]; [url="http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_106a.jpg"]Codex Vaticanus[/url].

The critical apparatus of the [i]Novum Testamentum Graece[/i] pretty much says it all imo. This [url="http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/?passage=1John.5.7-1John.5.8&view=parallel&strongs=1"] Manuscript Comparator[/url] represents a neat idea. Looks like many of the pages are inaccessible online but here is [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=231LfndVpPsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false"]Sacra Pagina: 1, 2 and 3 John[/url]; some of these issues are discussed beginning around page 300. Besides this I would suggest reading a bit of [url="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Bruce+Metzger&x=0&y=0"]Bruce Metzger[/url] if you're interested in these kind of things.

Btw, my purpose here is not to win converts to textual criticism but only to point out that using the [i]Comma Johanneum[/i] as a proof of the Trinity may get you into trouble, and I figured it would be better to hear these things from a fellow Catholic rather than a debate opponent.

[Damiano]

*["If the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture (which none of your quotes up there explicitly state)..."]

***The Holy Spirit is NOT the SOLE interpreter of Scripture (i.e., for there are heretics like the Magisterium who "interpret" also)--- but He is the sole INSPIRED interpreter of Scripture being God Himself the author of it. Too, "ALL scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in RIGHTEOUSNESS...that the MAN of God (i.e., the BORN-AGAIN believer---John 3:1-21) may be PERFECT throughly furnished unto all good works" [2 Timothy 3:16-17].

BOTTOM LINE: The above Scriptures are EXPLICIT that if our faith is properly placed in Christ--the Holy Spirit can and will bring forth TRUTH to us; He doesn't guide into SOME truth, but rather ALL truth: "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into ALL truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you" [John 16:13-14].


*["... then how do you account for the widely varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views among Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i]?"]

***To begin with ALL Protestants do NOT hold to the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPURA...you know it and I know it---so don't get cute with me. You arrogantly pose this question with the ERRONEOUS assumption that Romanism does NOT have varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views itself. The truth of the matter is---the BULK of your doctrine has NO SUPPORT at all in the Scriptures and is almost ENTIRELY based on your traditions that NULLIFY the of God [Matthew 15:6-9].

The most controversial issue between Protestants and Romanists is the question of AUTHORITY--what is the final seat of authority in religion. Many Protestants hold that the Bible ALONE is the FINAL rule of faith and practice, while Romanists hold that it is the Bible AND tradition as interpreted by the church. But we need only read church history to discover that when another source of authority is placed alongside Scripture as of EQUAL importance, Scripture eventually becomes relegated to the trash-heap. Whether that other source be reason, emotion, or tradition, the inevitable result is that it supplants Scripture and causes it gradually to fade away. If that other source be REASON, we get rationalism...if it be EMOTION, we get mysticism...if it be TRADITION, we get ecclesiastical dictation or clericalism. In each case the Bible, while still given lip service, is effectually superseded.


Damiano

[Arpy]

[quote name='Damiano' date='03 February 2010 - 04:57 AM' timestamp='1265201863' post='2050338']
*["... then how do you account for the widely varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views among Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i]?"]

***To begin with ALL Protestants do NOT hold to the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPURA...you know it and I know it---so don't get cute with me. You arrogantly pose this question with the ERRONEOUS assumption that Romanism does NOT have varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views itself. The truth of the matter is---the BULK of your doctrine has NO SUPPORT at all in the Scriptures and is almost ENTIRELY based on your traditions that NULLIFY the of God [Matthew 15:6-9].[/quote]
Please note that nowhere did I say all Protestants stick to [i]sola scriptura[/i]. Rather than attacking my religion's perceived contradictions, please answer the question I posed to you first, without assuming that it is without merit simply because of my Romanism: If the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture, how do you account for the widely varying beliefs among Protestants who hold that same Scripture as their sole authority? If they are guided by the Spirit, then why don't they all hold the same views on what that Scripture means?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Damiano' date='03 February 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1265184947' post='2050313']
*["The Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture."]



The Catholic magisterium is a collection of old unregenerate men who make pronouncements which are CONTRARY to Scripture and, as such, are FALSE. The ONLY inspired prounouncements are those contained in the Word of God (i.e., the Scriptures)...and Christians don't need unregenerate men to tell them what they mean for Christians have the Holy Ghost IN them for they are BORN of the Spirit og God (i.e., born-again) [John 3:1-21].

Damiano
[/quote]

Tell me where did the New Testament come from?
Who put it together?
Who decided the contents?
Who guarantees it the Word of God?

The Catholic Church.

If you insult the church you insult the Scriptures and you insult God. MAYBE you should rethink your opinion.

Scripture itself [ that catholic library you are fond of quoting] itself states " the church is the pillar and foundation".

Are you calling scripture a liar?

You may dislike what you think Catholic Church teachings are, and that is your perogative, but I suggest you watch your phrasing.
Differences of opinion are fine, insults are not.

[cmotherofpirl]

Also kindly cease referring to the Catholic Church as romanists, it is wrong, it is insulting.
The Catholic Church has 22 rites [ and pleased God soon to be 23], and while latin-rite catholics may comprise the largest, it is not the only one.

[Damiano]

*["...If the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture, how do you account for the widely varying beliefs among Protestants who hold that same Scripture as their sole authority? If they are guided by the Spirit, then why don't they all hold the same views on what that Scripture means?"]

***The argument that you are posing is a self-refuting argument that somehow, Roman Catholics are UNIFIED in belief. They are NOT. Roman Catholicism holds to SOLA ECCLESIA. This IS their INFALLIBLE source NOT the INSPIRED Scriptures. It does NOT provide UNITY. One can find SCORES of the early church fathers who DISAGREED with each other. For instance, it is in the mid-second century in the writings of Tertullian that we encounter the first clear articulation of the concept of TRADITION. Prior to this, we find little use of the word by the earliest fathers known as the Apostolic Fathers, and the apologists such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras. Rather, we find a constant appeal to the Old and New Testaments as AUTHORATATIVE sources of doctrine. These fathers held a very high view of the AUTHORITY of the Scriptures to be inspired by God...Clement of Rome and Polycarp quoted the writings of Paul calling them them the "INSPIRED ORACLES of God"...Justin Martyr likewise affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets by the Holy Spirit.

There is NO appeal in these writings to the concept of TRADITION as that embraced by the Catholic church today. They are full of direct quotations from the Old Testament and paraphrases or direct allusions to the New. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers LITERALLY breathe the New Testament. With the exception of 3 John and Jude, every book of the New Testament is either cited or alluded to in these early writings. There is NO APPEAL TO AN ORAL TRADITION. Irenaeus the defender of the faith against the Gnostic heresy leaves his readers in no doubt as to his view of Scripture. He referred to them as being fully AUTHORATATIVE for PROOF, for DOCTRINAL teaching of the Church. He states: "Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the SCRIPTURAL proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him."

Irenaeus criticism of the Gnostic system was the lack of PROOF for their teaching: "Moreover, they possess NO PROOF of their system, which has not but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the peophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they BOAST that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from OTHER SOURCES THAN THE SCRIPTURES..."

It is clear that what Irenaeus meant by PROOF was DOCUMENTATION from SCRIPTURE. This lack of it proved to him that Gnostic teaching was NOT apostolic. In fact, Irenaeus goes on to say that if a DOCTRINE cannot be PROVEN FROM SCRIPTURE it is purely SPECULATIVE and CANNOT BE KNOWN. He made it clear that revelation comes ONLY through SCRIPTURE...so if Scripture is silent on a subject one CANNOT PRETEND to KNOW what it does not reveal. He rejected the legitimacy of SPECULATION on any matter NOT REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. The importance of this principle is apparent when applied to the subject of tradition. Irenaeus believed that true apostolic tradition CANNOT be purely ORAL in nature...it must be VERIFIED from the writings of the apostles. This is the point of contention between Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents. The Gnostics claimed to possess an oral tradition from the apostles which was SUPPLEMENTAL to Scripture and IMMUNE to the Scriptural PROOFS demanded by Irenaeus. According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be DOCUMENTED BY SCRIPTURE!!!

BOTTOM LINE: Therefore, it is simply ridiculous for Roman Catholics to hold Protestants to a standard they themselves can't live up to. That some misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence is not a proof against Sola Scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my car's wiring system incorrectly is not the fault of the owner's manual that comes with it. The misuse of a SUFFICIENT source does not negate the CLARITY of that SUFFICIENT source.

Rome has only explicitly defined a handful of passages, and allows their theologians to SPECULATE and use their PRIVATE judgment on the MAJORITY of Scripture. What this means to the Catholic layman, is that in reality, they can't really KNOW what the Scriptures mean in most cases. Rome has claimed interpretive rights, but rarely use the right. Catholics can claim UNITY, but without an infallible interpretation of almost the ENTIRETY of the Bible, their ranting against alleged Protestant DISUNITY is more like clanging cymbals or a facade rather than an actual argument..

Modern Catholicism is the Gnosticism of Old...and Irenaeus is not here to combat it.

Damiano

[Nihil Obstat]

Ignatius and Clement didn't exactly have a large body of patristic Tradition to draw upon. Irenaeus had... what, a single generation to look back to? Tertullian had only slightly more than they did. (Interestingly, he went nuts with his Montanism)

The idea of Tradition presupposes something that came before. The Apostolic Fathers had no Christianity that came before, so obviously they drew from the Traditions of Sacred Scripture. As they authentically interpreted Sacred Scripture we can see a slow but steady growth of a legitimate (exclusively) Christian Tradition which we now have the luxury of looking upon as every bit as authoritative as the sources from which it arose.

So yea, nice logic fail. Am I allowed to accuse Protestantism of failing to adequately deal with the Gnostic heresies of the first millenium? May I accuse Martin Luther of having a poorly developed approach towards fetal stem cell research and in vitro fertilization?

Edited February 4, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Veridicus]

[img]http://lpmuds.net/teal_deer.jpg[/img]

[Arpy]

HOW do you explain 2 Thessalonians 2:15? And WHERE does the idea of sola scriptura come from, if not from OUTSIDE the Bible? NOWHERE does the Bible claim itself as the sole authority.

[Damiano]

*["Tell me where did the New Testament come from? Who put it together? Who decided the contents? Who guarantees it the Word of God?"]

***I'll let the Bible speak for itself. Does it claim to be God's Word? Yes! In fact, over 2,000 times in the OT alone it asserts that God spoke what is written within its pages...from the beginning [Genesis 1:3] to the end [Malachi 4:3]. and continuously throughout, this is what Scripture claims.

The phrase "the Word of God" occurs over 40 times in the NT. It is equated with the OT [Mark 7:13]...it is what Jesus preached [Luke 5:1]...it was the message the apostles taught [Acts 4:31;6:2]...it was the Word the Samaritans received [Acts 8:14] as given by the apostles [Acts 8:25]...it was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter [Acts 11:1]...it was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey [Acts 13:5,7,44,48,49;15:35,36]...it was the message Paul preached on his second missionary journey [Acts 16:32;17:13;18:11]...it was the message Paul preached on his third missionary journey [Acts 19:10]. It was the focus of Luke in the Book of Acts in that it spread rapidly and widely [Acts 6:7;12:24;19:20]. Paul was careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the Word as it was GIVEN FROM God, that it had not been adulterated, and that it was a manifestation of truth [2 Corinthians 2:17;4:2]. Paul acknowledged that it was the SOURCE of his preaching [Colossians 1:25;1 Thessalonians 2:13].

Psalms 19 and 119, plus Proverbs 30:5-6, make powerful statements about God's Word which set it apart from ANY other religious instruction ever known in the history of mankind. These passages make the case for the Bible being called "sacred" [2 Timothy 3:15] and "holy" [Romans 1:2].

The Bible claims ULTIMATE SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY in DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION, and INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS because it represents the INSPIRED Word of Almighty God [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. Scripture asserts its SPIRITUAL SUFFICIENCY, so much so that it claims EXCLUSIVITY for its teaching [Isaiah 55:11;2 Peter 1:3,4].

God's Word declares that it is INERRANT [Psalm 12:6;119:140;Proverbs 30:5a;John 10:35] and INFALLIBLE [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. In other words, it is true and therefore TRUSTWORTHY. All of these qualities are dependent on the fact that Scripture is God-given [2 Timothy 3:16;2 Peter 1:20,21], which guarantees its quality at the SOURCE and at its ORIGINAL writing.

In Scripture, the person of God and the Word of God are everywhere interrelated...so much so that whatsoever is true about the character of God is true about the NATURE of God's Word. God is TRUE, IMPECCABLE, and RELIABLE; therefore, so is His Word. What a person thinks about God's Word, in reality, reflects what a person THINKS ABOUT GOD.


*["The Catholic Church."]

***Pure unadulterated NONSENSE!


*["...If you insult the church you insult the Scriptures and you insult God. MAYBE you should rethink your opinion."]

***That is a LIE right out of the pit of Hell. Too, you will not dictate to me what I should rethink. My opinions are based on the dictates of Scripture which you and your church HATE and DENY. The Scriptures focuses the light of truth on the heresies promulgated by your church throughout the ages--which have consigned untold millions to everlasting perdition (some of whom are my family members) and I hate the "whore" for that.


*["Scripture itself [ that catholic library you are fond of quoting] itself states " the church is the pillar and foundation". Are you calling scripture a liar?"]

***I refuted that argument in a previous post at length. No, I am not calling Scripture a Liar...I am calling YOU and your APOSTATE Church LIARS!


*["You may dislike what you think Catholic Church teachings are, and that is your perogative, but I suggest you watch your phrasing. Differences of opinion are fine, insults are not."]

***Your Church and its doctrines are CONTRARY to what the Scriptures teach...and that is why you DENY them as the SOLE Authority. Your doctrines CANNOT stand the SCRUTINY of the Scriptures and are, as such, FALSE! I cannot and will NOT violate God's Word by remaining silent while you and your Church LIE about the SUFFICIENCY of His Word and attack it to perpetuate your church's lies which have consigned untold millions to Hell for almost two thousand years. Of course, I know that I will pay for these remarks by being BANNED...but I recant NOT!

Damiano