Pope backs civil unions

[1Thess521]

so, what does the bible say is the pillar and foundation of truth where two fallible persons go to when in disagreement?

Please follow the context of your own posts:

YOU posted
"if so, how can you be absolutely sure that what you receive from your pastors/leaders is divine truth coming from jesus christ and the apostles?"

YOU stated that you are fallible
Therefore you cannot be absolutely sure that what you receive from your pastors/leaders is divine truth coming from jesus christ and the apostles.

Now if you don't mean literally "absolutely sure "
then you need to chose another term

 

[ramcam2]

there is never any mention of "the pillar and foundation of truth" in the Bible

Do you know the difference between
(a) "a pillar of gold"
and
(b) "a pillar of the gold" ?

some bibles have it with the article 'the' while others do not.

is there a difference?

 

[ramcam2]

Please follow the context of your own posts:

YOU posted
"if so, how can you be absolutely sure that what you receive from your pastors/leaders is divine truth coming from jesus christ and the apostles?"

YOU stated that you are fallible
Therefore you cannot be absolutely sure that what you receive from your pastors/leaders is divine truth coming from jesus christ and the apostles.
for sure
Now if you don't mean literally "absolutely sure "
then you need to chose another term

we are all fallible. are you saying because we are fallible, there is no absolutely certainty when jesus promised the guidance of the holy spirit, the church will teach divine truth? you are wrong, despite being fallible, i absolutely know and very sure 100% that jesus will not lie and break his promise. this is why i am absolutely sure that what the church teaches is divine truth.

 

[1Thess521]

we are all fallible. are you saying because we are fallible, there is no absolutely certainty when jesus promised the guidance of the holy spirit, the church will teach divine truth? you are wrong, despite being fallible, i absolutely know and very sure 100% that jesus will not lie and break his promise. this is why i am absolutely sure that what the church teaches is divine truth.

FIRST
I am saying to you, that by definition; an admittedly fallible person cannot be cannot be 100% percent certain:
Words have meanings: it is obvious you do use the actual meaning of words in these posts.

You asked
"if so, how can you be absolutely sure that what you receive from your pastors/leaders is divine truth coming from jesus christ and the apostles?"
and when someone replies that they are NOT absolutely sure; you think you have made some great break through.

BREAKING NEWS ramcam2
Not everyone uses the ramcam2's meaning of words:

SECOND:
What you claim you are 100% absolutely certain is actually your interpretation:
however most of Christendom (including the Orthodox Church) does not agree with that interpretation.

Maybe you should let them know that the fallible ramcam2 is 100% absolutely certain

 

[1Thess521]

some bibles have it with the article 'the' while others do not.

is there a difference?

yes there is a difference
(a) "a pillar of gold" the pillar is made of gold
and
(b) "a pillar of the gold" the pillar is supporting gold

and in the same way: a pillar of wood is made of wood: a pillar of fire is made of fire

the text equates the church with the pillar (we agree)
YOU corrupt the text to equate the pillar with truth as Church = pillar ; pillar = truth

in your mind;
the Catholic Church is the pillar of truth:

but the actual meaning of the text is
believers (the ekkelsia) uphold the truth
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

the definite article is in the Greek (check it out yourself)
and an extreme minority of translations leave out the definite article:

 

[ramcam2]

yes there is a difference
(a) "a pillar of gold" the pillar is made of gold
and
(b) "a pillar of the gold" the pillar is supporting gold

and in the same way: a pillar of wood is made of wood: a pillar of fire is made of fire

the text equates the church with the pillar (we agree)
YOU corrupt the text to equate the pillar with truth as Church = pillar ; pillar = truth

in your mind;
the Catholic Church is the pillar of truth:

but the actual meaning of the text is
believers (the ekkelsia) uphold the truth
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

the definite article is in the Greek (check it out yourself)
and an extreme minority of translations leave out the definite article:

there is a difference because you define 'ekklesia' as the believers which is only one definition of the word. but, to be more specific, ekklesia in a christian sense is also the company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake ( Lexicon:: Strong's G1577- ekklesia). in other words, whether with the article 'the' or not, it is a specific church where all these believers belong to that upholds the truth, not only in a wide sense that your definition of ekklesia is saying. it is one lord, one faith, one baptism (eph4: 5).

​

 

[ramcam2]

FIRST
I am saying to you, that by definition; an admittedly fallible person cannot be cannot be 100% percent certain:
Words have meanings: it is obvious you do use the actual meaning of words in these posts.

You asked
"if so, how can you be absolutely sure that what you receive from your pastors/leaders is divine truth coming from jesus christ and the apostles?"
and when someone replies that they are NOT absolutely sure; you think you have made some great break through.

BREAKING NEWS ramcam2
Not everyone uses the ramcam2's meaning of words:

SECOND:
What you claim you are 100% absolutely certain is actually your interpretation:
however most of Christendom (including the Orthodox Church) does not agree with that interpretation.

Maybe you should let them know that the fallible ramcam2 is 100% absolutely certain

inspite of my fallibility, i am 100% sure that jesus christ does not lie. what about you?

 

[balshan]

inspite of my fallibility, i am 100% sure that jesus christ does not lie. what about you?

Your institution lies, another proof it is not His church.

 

[mica]

inspite of my fallibility, i am 100% sure that jesus christ does not lie. what about you?

is that important to you? if so, why? if it isn't then why isn't it?

 

[1Thess521]

inspite of my fallibility, i am 100% sure that jesus christ does not lie. what about you?

follow along
using the actual literal definition of words
I am NOT 100% sure that Jesus Christ does not lie.
I am NOT absolutely sure that Jesus Christ does not lie.
IOW
I am NOT infallibly sure that Jesus Christ does not lie.

follow along
I am NOT infallible sure that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But I do have an extremely high degree of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow
and I am even more than that Jesus Christ does not lie.

BTW: are you 100% sure that Jesus Christ isn't offended that you deliberately do not capitalize His Name?

 

[1Thess521]

there is a difference because you define 'ekklesia' as the believers which is only one definition of the word. but, to be more specific, ekklesia in a christian sense is also the company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake ( Lexicon:: Strong's G1577- ekklesia). in other words, whether with the article 'the' or not, it is a specific church where all these believers belong to that upholds the truth, not only in a wide sense that your definition of ekklesia is saying. it is one lord, one faith, one baptism (eph4: 5).

​

PLEASE follow the context:
I was pointing out that you consistently and deliberately leave out the definite article in 1 Timothy 3:15 thereby changing the meaning of the verse.

 

[ramcam2]

Your institution lies, another proof it is not His church.

peace be with you.

 

[ramcam2]

PLEASE follow the context:
I was pointing out that you consistently and deliberately leave out the definite article in 1 Timothy 3:15 thereby changing the meaning of the verse.

there is not deliberate leaving out of the article 'the'. i have explained, here again....' whether with the article 'the' or not, it is a SPECIFIC church where all these believers belong to that upholds the truth, not only in a wide sense that your definition of ekklesia is saying. it is one lord, one faith, one baptism (eph4: 5)'.

 

[ramcam2]

follow along
using the actual literal definition of words
I am NOT 100% sure that Jesus Christ does not lie.
I am NOT absolutely sure that Jesus Christ does not lie.
IOW
I am NOT infallibly sure that Jesus Christ does not lie.

follow along
I am NOT infallible sure that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But I do have an extremely high degree of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow
and I am even more than that Jesus Christ does not lie.

BTW: are you 100% sure that Jesus Christ isn't offended that you deliberately do not capitalize His Name?

are you saying a fallible man is not capable of 100% religious faith?

fyi, small letters for jesus is not deliberate and with malice on my part. i will try to capitalize if it offends you.

 

[mica]

there is not deliberate leaving out of the article 'the'. i have explained, here again....' whether with the article 'the' or not, it is a SPECIFIC church where all these believers belong to that upholds the truth, not only in a wide sense that your definition of ekklesia is saying. it is one lord, one faith, one baptism (eph4: 5)'.

the RCC isn't in any sense.

 

[1Thess521]

are you saying a fallible man is not capable of 100% religious faith?

fyi, small letters for jesus is not deliberate and with malice on my part. i will try to capitalize if it offends you.

the context is that you wanted to know how we can be absolutely 100% sure that are pastors are correct

Using the actual literal definitions of the those words: we cannot be absolutely 100% sure that are pastors are correct.

Your turn:
are you absolutely 100% sure that your priest is correct in his teaching?

 

[1Thess521]

there is not deliberate leaving out of the article 'the'. i have explained, here again....' whether with the article 'the' or not, it is a SPECIFIC church where all these believers belong to that upholds the truth, not only in a wide sense that your definition of ekklesia is saying. it is one lord, one faith, one baptism (eph4: 5)'.

it does make a difference:

a pillar of gold is different than a pillar of the gold
a pillar of truth is different than a pillar of the truth

 

[ramcam2]

the RCC isn't in any sense.

your definition of 'ekklesia' is not a complete one.

 

[ramcam2]

the context is that you wanted to know how we can be absolutely 100% sure that are pastors are correct

Using the actual literal definitions of the those words: we cannot be absolutely 100% sure that are pastors are correct.

Your turn:
are you absolutely 100% sure that your priest is correct in his teaching?

100% sure that the catholic church is infallible in teachings of faith and morals. this means when the priests teaches on matters of catholic faith and morals, not their personal opinion, i am absolutely 100% sure of the truth in it.

 

[mica]

100% sure that the catholic church is infallible in teachings of faith and morals. this means when the priests teaches on matters of catholic faith and morals, not their personal opinion, i am absolutely 100% sure of the truth in it.

no, it's 100% fallible and wrong on almost everything regarding faith - even a lot on morals. It has few of those. There is little to no biblical truth regarding what the RCC teaches.