The Bible itself says that “the Church is the pillar and bullwark of the truth”

Paul says to keep everything that has been taught “by word of mouth and by letter”

John tells us that not everything Jesus taught was written down.

Obviously there are things that were not written. Those things are kept in the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

It was the Catholic Church that gave us the Cannon of Scripture. Prior to that there was no complete Bible.

This is historically documented and I would be happy to provide you with the information, but only if you are willing to have an intelligent rational discourse. I’m not going to respond to your ridiculous “no it doesn’t” any more.

John 1 says that Jesus is God. Revelations 1 says Jesus is God. Thomas calls Jesus God after the resurrection. Jesus refers to himself as “I AM”, the same name God gave for himself to Moses.

You have no answer to this because the Holy Spirit will not allow you to lie, only to chose to be wrong.

Additionally, you have no response to the verses that refer to Jesus as the creator of all things. God is the creator of all things, so how could Jesus be unless he is God? Or are you saying the Bible is wrong?

Lastly, only God can forgive our sins and only God can redeem us from the Fall. If Jesus is not God, you are stupid to call yourself a Christian, for no mere humen can affect your Salvation.

I hope you will offer me an intelligent response, instead of the saccharine tripe you have tried to pass off as debate so far.

You already contradict yourself in your first two (unsubstantiated) charges. First you say:

“The Vatican “incorporated” the doctrine of Trinity to the Christian belief to “tame” the Pagans and convert the Roman Empire to Christianity. At the same time, “taming” the “Christians”.”

Then you follow it up with:

“In other words, the Roman Empire mixed two totally opposing beliefs/religion/faith (whatever you want to call them) to tame all the people.”

Which was it? Did the Vatican do it to convert the Roman Empire to Christianity or did the Roman Empire do it to tame the people? And how would imposing a so-called false doctrine on then “tame the Chrstians”? Furthermore, while the Roman Empire had collapsed by the begining of the 5th century, the Vatican did not come to be the center of the Church until over 400 years later, so it is unlikely that the Vatican used the doctrine of the Trinity to convert the Roman Empire. Not a very well thought out argument, but I’ll give you credit for trying.

The Catholic Church does not, as you assert, have “changing doctrine”, although as in every other human endeavor, there is developement of understanding. This is not due to error on the part of God or of the Church, but because we pitiful humans have a limited capacity for understanding, and God is infinite. Again, I make the same charge I’ve made to SELaplana: document your charges against the Church.

I am more than willing to debate all the issues that you bring up, but one at a time, and currently SELaplana and I are engaging the divinity (or lack thereof, from his perspective) of Jesus Christ. I am not interested in slinging accusations back and forth, so unless you are willing to cite historical documents or sound scriptural principles to substantiate your charges against the Catholic Church, I’ll have to bid you slan abhaile.

One further note- thank you for pointing out to us that all we need to know is Acts 2:38. I guess God was just bored when He inspired the authors of the rest of scripture.

By the way, Acts is not one of the Gospels.

In other words, the Roman Empire mixed two totally opposing beliefs/religion/faith (whatever you want to call them) to tame all the people.

I am not defending SEPlana here, I don’t even know to which denomination he belongs to, but to discuss Trinity, we must dig-up our history.

That’s only the beginning… there countless more teachings of the catholic church that is totally contradicting with what the Bible teaches us.

Don’t you know that the catholic church or vatican didn’t come up with the Trinity right at the beginning? It was “Duality” before “Trinity” was incorporated – Duality, being that there is the Father and Jesus Christ. Later on, the Power of the Holy Spirit was felt, and they held another meeting and changed their doctrine to Trinity. Goal achieved.

Apparently, the Christians and the Chosen People did not accept it and hid away from the eyes of the Vatican.

So it all comes down now, who do we believe to? The ever changing doctrine of the Vatican or the ever the same Holy Bible?

The Bible said, “God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow”. God will not teach us “changing doctrines”. The Holy Bible is not a “technology” where it is “updated”. God’ Word will always be the same, now and forever.

The doctrine of the holy trinity is wrong. It was created by man, not God.

Oh one more thing, God is not a shampoo…. “3-in-1″.

Finally, the Gospel is “Acts 2:38″, St. Peter saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

We can go on if we want to… let’s talk about “Salvation”? How about if the Pope is really “infallible”? Or how about the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that Peter is the 1st Pope? And why “ROMAN Catholic Church”? Why do Catholics call themselves “Catholic” and not as “Christian”? Why is there a need to separate yourselves from the “Christian” name if Catholicism is really Christianity? Let’s not forget about the difference between the Catholic baptism and the Holy Bible’s Baptism…

and lots more to talk about the “Teachings of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church versus the teachings of the Father, His Word the Holy Christian Bible”.

Above I listed 43 verses that mention the divinity of Christ or the divinity of the Holy Spirit. You have ignored them. We know that there is One God. We know that God the Father is divine. If God the Son is divine and God the Holy Spirit is divine, that presents a bit of dificulty for your theory. You stumble around this by saying that “the Word was God” is metaphor. If John had been calling something God that was not God he would have been guilty of blasphemy. Are you saying that the inspired, inerrant word of God contains blasphemy? What indication do you have that John meant that metaphorically (aside from that it fits YOUR interpretation of scripture better)? By what authority do you declare it to be so? If this were the only passage that refered to the divinity of Christ, I might be inclined to consider your position, but there are many others.

The Catholic Church does not in any way disagree with John 17, or with any other part of the Bible. What exactly do you interpret John 17 to mean? And what teaching of the Catholic Church do you believe contradicts this?

Again, the same with 1Cor8:6. What is your interpretation of this and where do you believe Catholic doctrine to be in error?

Please cite the Magisterial documents of the Church that teach what you percieve to be error, so that I may discuss this with you in a rational manner, rather than us going “yes it does” “no it doesn’t” “yes it does” etc., ad infinitum…

Again, please tell me what authority you possess to render your interpretation of scripture valid.