The only thing you have left after I quoted the Bible (the very book you claim to hold in the highest regard… until it patently contradicts you) is jokes. And jokes of very dubious taste, at that.
“you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
“"I will send to you the Spirit of truth, says the Lord; he will guide you to all truth.”
I swear, I didn’t write those words. And their meaning is perfectly clear. You’re the one who seems to think you have the authority to hollow out the sacred text until its words mean the exact opposite of their plain meaning, since you don’t believe that any meaningful knowledge of the truth can be reached despite Jesus’ very clear words on the subject.
No. You repeat it like a mantra and it will end up on your tombstone. I was hoping that the visual would break through your bindness but obviously it didn’t.
You clearly have a fixed view of this citation that I am supposed to accept without question.
Your brain is not big enough to hold (know) “The Truth” whatever that might actually be. Instead you cling to your beliefs as if they must be and cannot seem to understand what you are actually believing or how rational or irrational they might be. You blind yourself with a home made logic about what Christ says and demand i acceot it.
Sorry, but no.
Then of course there is the irony of a grave setting you free. At least to non believers it is an irony, because they have even less of an idea of the continuance than we do.
I have patiently ploughed through (or skimmed) your rants and raves that are supposed to convince me that you have your own beliefs but they do not. You repeat yourself ad infinitum, not even bothering to rephrase or clarify.
Remove your first premise about what Christ said and everything collapses like a house of cards.
And the fact that no one has bothered to interject means, either they haven’t bothered reading it, or they have nothing better to say. (either way).
Like I said before, you have made yourself abundantly clear but could have said the same in a fraction of words. “I believe the RCC” sums it up nicely.
The problem is that you cannot remove it, unless you want a Scripture “à la carte”.
This is true, this doesn’t mean that God hasn’t provided us a way to know what we can possibly know about the truth in this earthly existence.
Why do I assert this? Because HE said as much. HE said that, not me. And you DON’T have the authority to hollow out His words, no matter what you think.
Your idea that the truth is unknowable in any meaningful sense is unbiblical and unchristian. Deal with it. Or don’t. By all means, do whatever you want.
I’m not hear to entertain your unchristian views (which doesn’t mean that you aren’t a Christian or that I don’t recognize you as one, it just means that you have been severely affected by the errors of this era), as long as you keep stating them I will refute them. Patience is something I’m well equipped with.
Of course this is a fool’s errand because, since you don’t believe that truth can be reached in any meaningful sense, you don’t even believe that what you say can be “refuted”, because the idea of refutation implies that you have to aknowledge that truth exists and we can reach it (at the very least, we can reach the truth that is possible to reach during our earthly existences), but I’m not writing just for you but also for other users and lurkers.
P.s
I could also say: “remove our premise about Christ’s resurrection and our faith would be useless”.
1 Corinthians 15:14: “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
1 Cor 13
**11 **When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. **12 **For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Hete you are conflating two very different claims: that we can genuinely know revealed truth, and that a finite human mind can exhaustively comprehend the whole of divine reality.
1 Corinthians 13 denies the latter, not the former.
Paul does not say, “Now we know nothing.” He says, “Now I know in part.” Partial knowledge is still real knowledge, his contrast is between incomplete knowledge now and fuller knowledge later, not between falsehood or almost complete ignorance now and truth only in the next life.
That becomes even clearer in John 16, where Christ promises the Apostles that the Spirit of truth “will guide you into all the truth.” Obviously, He is not promising them omniscience about every conceivable subject, He is speaking about the truth of His revelation: what He taught, what He accomplished, and what the Apostles were to understand and transmit.
So Christianity does not claim that we can comprehend God exhaustively, It claims that God can reveal truths that finite minds can nevertheless know truly and with certainty.
And there is an unavoidable ecclesiological consequence.
Christ does not make this promise merely to isolated private believers, but to the Apostolic body entrusted with the public mission of teaching His revelation. In Matthew 28 He commands the Apostles to teach all nations and promises to remain with them “until the end of the age.”
The original Apostles obviously did not live until the end of the age, yet their mission does.
That means the Apostolic teaching office cannot simply disappear with their deaths if Christ’s promise is to retain any meaning beyond the first generation.
Paul then calls the Church (not the private judgment of individual Christians) “the pillar and foundation of truth.”
And Acts 15 shows what this looks like in practice. A serious doctrinal dispute arises. The answer is not, “Everyone interpret Scripture for himself.” The Apostles and elders meet, deliberate, and issue a binding judgment to the churches with the extraordinary formula: “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us.”
So the Church doesn’t create truth, nor does this imply that every churchman is infallible. The point is that if Christ entrusted a definite revelation to an enduring Church, commanded that Church to teach it until the end of the age, promised the Apostolic body the guidance of the Spirit of truth, and Scripture itself calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth, then some continuing ecclesial authority capable of preserving and authoritatively identifying that revelation follows very naturally from the structure Christ established.
Otherwise we end up with a rather strange picture:
Christ reveals the truth.
Christ promises the Spirit will guide His Apostles into it.
Christ commands that truth to be taught until the end of the age.
Scripture calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth.
And yet, after the Apostles die, Christians are supposedly left with no divinely protected means of determining, amid contradictory interpretations, what that revelation actually teaches.
1 Corinthians 13 does not establish that, it simply says our knowledge is incomplete, it doesn‘t say that revealed truth is unknowable.
WOW, that is an accusation you would now have to prove (especially since in the past you have made claims such as that the Church’s teaching authority was real only for as long as the Apostles themselves were alive, a limitation for which I can find no basis either in Scripture or in the early Fathers).
I said that “binding and loosing” doesn’t mean possessing the authority to invent revelation independently of God’s law, and Catholicism says exactly the same thing: the Church explicitly teaches that public Revelation is complete, that no new public revelation is to be expected, and that the Magisterium is not above the Word of God but serves it, “teaching only what has been handed on.”
So saying, “Rome went beyond that authority,” merely restates your conclusion.
Which doctrine, specifically, constitutes a new revelation invented by Rome?
And more importantly: demonstrate that it is an addition to the apostolic deposit rather than a definition, clarification, or legitimate development of something contained within it.
That distinction is absolutely crucial, because a doctrine becoming more explicit centuries later doesn’t mean that its content was invented centuries later.
Christian history makes the distinction unavoidable, otherwise you would have to apply exactly the same objection to later technical formulations of doctrines such as the Trinity (with the totally unscriptural ὁμοούσιον ).
It depends, there are matters that are left to subjective interpretation, others aren’t.
For example we know for sure that Jesus is God, this is not merely an opinion for Christians, just like it wasn’t an opinion when the apostles said “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” etc
That is your opinion only. You are not God. And neither is the RCC.
Whether I accept certain truths or not, is not the point here, the point is that neither you, I or The RCC have the authority to make such assertions, only God.
That doesn’t end anything because Jesus unfortunately four you founded a Church. There is literally zero you can do about it. It doesn’t matter how many times you state it.
Also
Yes. The fact that Jesus said that the Spirit will lead to the whole truth is PATENTLY INCOMPATIBLE with your idea that we cannot know anything about Him with certainty (probably not even that Jesus is actually God, unless you, in your complete inconsistency, recognize authority to the council of Nicaea) is just my opinion, it’s not something commanded by LOGIC (namely the fact that Jesus stating that we WILL KNOW the truth and that the Spirit will lead us to it is NOT compatible with your idea that we don’t know ANYTHING), it’s just my opinion.
LOL.
Go ahead, this is becoming madly funny. You would claim that 2+2 =77 if it suited your argument.
The fact is that you aren’t even bothered by your own inconsistency. You are like a child, the principle of pleasure is what governs you. If there is something that you don’t like, you simply don’t accept it. Everything is about you and your interpretations. Nothing else matters.
I would ask which ones, and examine whether they are indeed inconsistencies.
I’m not ridiculing you, except when you twist Jesus’ words to the point that they end up saying the exact opposite of their plain meaning. This doesn’t negate nuance, but what you do is not nuance.
If Jesus says something and you interpret HIS words as though they mean the exact opposite how do you expect me to react? Do you understand that His words have a little more weight than yours, right?
The Immaculate Conception and transubstantiation are big ones. Both are philosophical musings that should have been left as musings, not declared to be something that was always believed.
