ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING BLASPHEMY ACCEPTABLE
Nicholas II
not? ALL Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, nuns, deacons, and lay people
call the Pope "Holy Father" do they not? So much so, that the media as
well as EVERY CATHOLIC calls him holy father as well. However, the
Word of God defines blasphemy in this manner...
John 10:33, "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone
thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man,
makest thyself God."
How is calling the Pope "holy father" blasphmey?
John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the
world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF CALLED HIS HEAVENLY FATHER "HOLY FATHER"!
To call the Pope the SAME NAME Jesus called God Almighty is to
proclaim the Pope "GOD ON EARTH!"
Fact is folks... your Pope has been proclaiming that for years...
Fact: "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is
Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic
National July 1895.
Fact: Roman Catholic Pope states "We hold upon this earth the place of
God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
Fact: "For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the
director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on
earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col.
109
Fact: The title "Lord God the Pope" is found within a gloss of
Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4
Fact: Blasphemy is also defined: Mark 2:7, "Why doth this man thus
speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"
Fact: The "confessional" of the Roman Catholic Church is indeed yet
another identifiable feature exposing the Vatican as Antichrist's
dwelling. They openly declare a MAN dressed as a priest has the power
to FORGIVE SINS!
Want almost 2000 pages of PROOF the Pope is Antichrist? Stop by...
www.RemnantofGod.org
...Nicholas
Truth is truth!
Joseph Meehan
--
Dia 's Muire duit
Joseph E. Meehan
"Nicholas II" <nich...@remnantofgod.org> wrote in message
news:f23369b9.0201...@posting.google.com...
...
> John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the
> world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
> those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
>
> JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF CALLED HIS HEAVENLY FATHER "HOLY FATHER"!
>
> To call the Pope the SAME NAME Jesus called God Almighty is to
> proclaim the Pope "GOD ON EARTH!"
...
You are really streching there. You don't see the difference in
"Heavenly Father" and "Holy Father." Tell me, did you even call your
earthly father "father"? Have you researched to find what exact name was
used. After all I am sure the original word was not "father" as it is
unlikly Christ chose at that time to speak English.
>
> Fact is folks... your Pope has been proclaiming that for years...
>
Omitted are a series of out of context post that I am not familur with,
so I will allow others to comment on.
>
> Fact: The "confessional" of the Roman Catholic Church is indeed yet
> another identifiable feature exposing the Vatican as Antichrist's
> dwelling. They openly declare a MAN dressed as a priest has the power
> to FORGIVE SINS!
You seem to be ignoring the Bible there Nicky.
NJB John 20:19-23
19. In the evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors
were closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews.
Jesus came and stood among them. He said to them, "Peace be with you,"
20. and, after saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The
disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord,
21. and he said to them again, "Peace be with you. `As the Father sent me,
so am I sending you."
22. After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit.
23. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's
sins, they are retained.
>
> Want almost 2000 pages of PROOF the Pope is Antichrist? Stop by...
> www.RemnantofGod.org
>
> ...Nicholas
> Truth is truth!
Yes Nick truth is truth, but you don't seem to care much for it.
Edward Curtis
says...
> To call the Pope the SAME NAME Jesus called God Almighty is to
> proclaim the Pope "GOD ON EARTH!"
No it is not...more lies from Nick.
> Fact is folks... your Pope has been proclaiming that for years...
>
> Fact: "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is
> Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic
> National July 1895.
Not an official Catholic source.
> Fact: Roman Catholic Pope states "We hold upon this earth the place of
> God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
Because the Pope is God's REPRESENTATIVE....Not God nor a replacement for
God.
> Fact: "For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the
> director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on
> earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col.
> 109
The original was in Latin, was this translated properly?
Even if so -- I did a search on the phrase to see if some sites had more
detail. It is claimed this quote was from an address to a pope by a
priest at the 5th Lateran Council.
Sorry, but an address by a priest -- even at a Council -- doesn't
establish doctrine.
Interesting that all the sites that had this quote, too, were anti-
Catholic. (Except for a couple of Catholic Apologetics forums that were
discussing the quote.)
Here is a pro-Catholic site with the official documents of that Council:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/18ecume1.htm
(I don't have time to read it now, as I have to get to work.)
> Fact: The title "Lord God the Pope" is found within a gloss of
> Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4
Refuted here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=11643-35960A52-39%40newsd-
101.iap.bryant.webtv.net&rnum=1
Basically Nick is going by a bad translation. It actually says "Pope of
our Lord God".
> Fact: Blasphemy is also defined: Mark 2:7, "Why doth this man thus
> speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"
>
> Fact: The "confessional" of the Roman Catholic Church is indeed yet
> another identifiable feature exposing the Vatican as Antichrist's
> dwelling. They openly declare a MAN dressed as a priest has the power
> to FORGIVE SINS!
The Catholic Church teaches that only God forgives sins, but he does so
through the agency of His priests. See John 20:23.
Edward
Edward Curtis
says...
> Here is a pro-Catholic site with the official documents of that Council:
Better link:
http://www.geocities.com/catholicsource/councils/ecum09.htm
Edward Curtis
> http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/18ecume1.htm
> (I don't have time to read it now, as I have to get to work.)
OK, I did a quick search on the word "God", and came up with:
"Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the
sacred council, for an everlasting record."
Referring to the pope of the time, Julius II.
Sure doesn't sound like he's calling himself God to me.
Edward
Tom A.
Edward Curtis wrote:
>
> In article <f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com>, Nicholas II
> says...
Missed this - but I don't read Ol' Nick's writings usually.
> > Fact: Roman Catholic Pope states "We hold upon this earth the place of
> > God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
I did some research on this one. It is a lie.
Actually, what Pope Leo XIII actually wrote was (From SATIS COGNITUM (On
the Unity of the Church) Pope Leo XIII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1896)
<b>These things enable us to see the heavenly ideal, and the divine
exemplar, of the constitution of the Christian commonwealth, namely:
When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith,
in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as
the principle and center, as it were, of this unity. Wherefore St.
Cyprian says: "The following is a short and easy proof of the faith. The
Lord saith to Peter: 'I say to thee thou art Peter'; on him alone He
buildeth His Church; and although after His Resurrection He gives a
similar power to all the apostles and says: 'As the Father hath sent
me,' &c., still in order to make the necessary unity clear, by His own
authority He laid down the source of that unity as beginning from one"
(De Unit. Eccl., n. 4). And Optatus of Milevis says: "You cannot deny
that you know that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first
conferred on Peter. In this Peter, the head of all the Apostles (hence
his name Cephas), has sat; in which chair alone unity was to be
preserved for all, lest any of the other apostles should claim anything
as exclusively his own. So much so, that he who would place
another chair against that one chair, would be a schismatic and a
sinner" (De Schism. Donat., lib. ii). Hence the teaching of Cyprian,
that heresy and schism arise and are begotten from the fact that due
obedience is refused to the supreme authority. <u>"Heresies and schisms
have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of
God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the
place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5).</u> No
one, therefore, unless
in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd
to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. Wherefore
Optatus of Milevis blamed the Donatists for this reason: "Against which
ages (of hell) we read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to
say, our prince, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not conquer
them.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves
the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—you who fight against the chair of
Peter?" (Lib. ii.,
n. 4-5).</b>
And when we go to Cyprian for the context of his statement:
From the ANP:
Cyprian's Epistle LIV
<b>
5. When, then, such and so great examples, and many others, are
precedents whereby the priestly authority and power by the divine
condescension is established, what kind of people, think you, are they
who, being enemies of the priests, and rebels against the Catholic
Church, are frightened neither by the threatening of a forewarning Lord,
nor by the vengeance of coming judgment? For neither have heresies
arisen, nor have schisms originated, from any other source than from
this, that God's priest is not obeyed; nor do they consider that there
is one person for the time priest in the Church, and for the time judge
in the stead of Christ;23 whom, if, according to divine teaching, the
whole fraternity should obey, no one would stir up anything against the
college of priests; no one, after the divine judgment, after the
suffrage of the people, after the consent of the co-bishops, would make
himself a judge, not now of the bishop, but of God. No one would rend
the Church by a division of the unity of Christ.24 No one, pleasing
himself, and swelling with arrogance, would found a new heresy, separate
and without, unless any one be of such sacrilegious daring and abandoned
mind, as to think that a priest is made without God's judgment, when the
Lord says in His Gospel, "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and
one of them does not fall to the ground without the will of your
Father."</b>
We see that the quote isn't what Ol' Nick said it was, and it certainly
didn't mean what he things it meant.
>
> Edward
--
Tom A.
"No doubt many that post deserve to be flamed. And many that are flamed
didn't deserve it. Can you give them the latter? Then don't be so
quick to deal out the former!" - not Gandalf.
Deja mail is gone. Look for me at raugost at yahoo . com
Edward Curtis
> Edward Curtis wrote:
> >
> > In article <f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com>, Nicholas II
> > says...
>
> Missed this - but I don't read Ol' Nick's writings usually.
>
>
> > > Fact: Roman Catholic Pope states "We hold upon this earth the place of
> > > God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
>
> I did some research on this one. It is a lie.
Actually, the quote is real, but Nick took it out of context (big
surprise - NOT). It is from THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM (Praeclara
Gratulationis Publicae) dated June 20, 1894. It is distinct from the
encyclical you posted, THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, which was issued two
years later.
Here is the entire quote, in context, (from a pro-Catholic site, by the
way -- http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm --
also see their impressive list of encyclicals at
ttp://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/TriumphOfChurch.htm)
"But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will
have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and
now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on
towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the
example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to
return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that
His Disciples anf followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I
pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee:
that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and
supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus
Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in
Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently
expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that
the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the
Unity of Divine Faith."
Read in context, it is clear that Leo was not claiming to be God. But
just in case there is any doubt, here is one of the closing statements of
the same encyclical:
"May God, Who is rich in Mercy, and in Whose Power are the times and
moments, grant Our wishes and desires, and in His great Goodness, hasten
the fulfillment of that Divine Promise of Jesus Christ: There will be One
Fold and One Shepherd."
Edward
Nicholas II
book... chapter... and verse please
...Nicholas
www.remnantofgod.org
Edward Curtis
Nicholas II
> --
> Dia 's Muire duit
>
> Joseph E. Meehan
>
>
>
> "Nicholas II" <nich...@remnantofgod.org> wrote in message
> news:f23369b9.0201...@posting.google.com...
> ...
> > John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the
> > world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
> > those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
> >
> > JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF CALLED HIS HEAVENLY FATHER "HOLY FATHER"!
> >
> > To call the Pope the SAME NAME Jesus called God Almighty is to
> > proclaim the Pope "GOD ON EARTH!"
> ...
>
> You are really streching there. You don't see the difference in
> "Heavenly Father" and "Holy Father." Tell me, did you even call your
> earthly father "father"? Have you researched to find what exact name was
> used. After all I am sure the original word was not "father" as it is
> unlikly Christ chose at that time to speak English.
the Bible has jesus calling HIS FATHER the "Holy Father" If you
understand English you realize that is the title the SON OF GOD gives
HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN. And then we see the POPE'S declaring themselves
HOLY FATHER?
Is that clear enough Joe?
>
> >
> > Fact is folks... your Pope has been proclaiming that for years...
> >
>
> Omitted are a series of out of context post that I am not familur with,
> so I will allow others to comment on.
>
> >
> > Fact: The "confessional" of the Roman Catholic Church is indeed yet
> > another identifiable feature exposing the Vatican as Antichrist's
> > dwelling. They openly declare a MAN dressed as a priest has the power
> > to FORGIVE SINS!
>
> You seem to be ignoring the Bible there Nicky.
> NJB John 20:19-23
> 19. In the evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors
> were closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews.
> Jesus came and stood among them. He said to them, "Peace be with you,"
> 20. and, after saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The
> disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord,
> 21. and he said to them again, "Peace be with you. `As the Father sent me,
> so am I sending you."
> 22. After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit.
> 23. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's
> sins, they are retained.
>
Matthew 18:15-20 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee,
go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear
thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear [thee,
then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect
to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the
church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily
I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth
as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them
of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conditions to loose and bind are...
#1 "...if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother."
#2 "...take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word may be established"
#3 "...And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the
church: "
Three conditions that are NOT met by simply stepping into a
"confessional". The Bible is plain here. When a person is in sin you
kindly bring it to their attention. If they agree and repent, they
have been "loosed" from their sin. If they ignore you the next step is
to let them know that more than ONE person has noticed their sin and
that they are concerened for them. Still, if they ignore you, bring it
to their church family. If after seeing that their entire church
family is in agreement that they are in sin. Then it is obvious that
they have decided not to be part of the church family and are deciding
to live in sin. Then and only then are we authorized by God to "bind"
them in the sin they have chosen.
So often the verse # 18 is the only verse used to acknowledge the
authority of the Priest in confession. However, when you read the
ENTIRE series of verses above, and below this verse, the TRUTH is made
clear. I pray wholeheartedly that ALL Catholics get used to going to
their Bibles before and after they ask a Priest for advice. This is
what will open their eyes.
>
> >
> > Want almost 2000 pages of PROOF the Pope is Antichrist? Stop by...
> > www.RemnantofGod.org
> >
> > ...Nicholas
> > Truth is truth!
>
> Yes Nick truth is truth, but you don't seem to care much for it.
I believe I just proved you are the one denying truth. And MANY of
those reading this agree. My email is packed by now with the proof.
So... continue to deny all you like. Makes no difference to me. I post
so those that DO SEE your lies get out of the church of Rome.
...Nicholas
www.RemnantofGod.org
Truth is truth
Joseph Meehan
> "Joseph Meehan" <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<sPQ38.61726$zk4.14...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>...
> > --
> > news:f23369b9.0201...@posting.google.com...
> > ...
> > > John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the
> > > world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
> > > those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
> > >
> > > JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF CALLED HIS HEAVENLY FATHER "HOLY FATHER"!
> > >
> > > To call the Pope the SAME NAME Jesus called God Almighty is to
> > > proclaim the Pope "GOD ON EARTH!"
> > ...
> >
> > You are really streching there. You don't see the difference in
> > "Heavenly Father" and "Holy Father." Tell me, did you even call your
> > earthly father "father"? Have you researched to find what exact name
was
> > used. After all I am sure the original word was not "father" as it is
> > unlikly Christ chose at that time to speak English.
>
> the Bible has jesus calling HIS FATHER the "Holy Father" If you
> understand English you realize that is the title the SON OF GOD gives
> HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN. And then we see the POPE'S declaring themselves
> HOLY FATHER?
>
> Is that clear enough Joe?
>
What seems clear is you are not getting it. The Bible you are reading
is a translation into English. The Bible was not written in English nor
were the original words reported spoken in English. Christ came for all
people, not just the English speaking world. Maybe you should take a look
out there. Most of the world does not speak English and at the time of
Christ no one spoke English. As an English speaker you are in a minority.
You are confusing two different instructions. Your comments make as
much sense as saying you don't need to obey speed limits because you obey
stop signs. You are guilty of taking a few statements from the Bible and
making them YOUR Bible, while ignoring the rest of the Bible. You are not
alone in doing this, it is common. It makes it easy to justify most
anything that you like, but it does not find the truth, it is only a way of
distorting the truth.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Want almost 2000 pages of PROOF the Pope is Antichrist? Stop by...
> > > www.RemnantofGod.org
> > >
> > > ...Nicholas
> > > Truth is truth!
> >
> > Yes Nick truth is truth, but you don't seem to care much for it.
>
> I believe I just proved you are the one denying truth. And MANY of
> those reading this agree. My email is packed by now with the proof.
> So... continue to deny all you like. Makes no difference to me. I post
> so those that DO SEE your lies get out of the church of Rome.
>
Your e-mail is packed with those like you who do not want to face the
hard parts of what Christ taught us and like the easy life of ignoring those
parts they don't like. You are deciving yourself Nicky.
> ...Nicholas
Tom A.
Edward Curtis wrote:
>
> In article <3C505EDD...@my-deja.com>, Tom A. says...
> > Edward Curtis wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com>, Nicholas II
> > > says...
> >
> > Missed this - but I don't read Ol' Nick's writings usually.
> >
> >
> > > > Fact: Roman Catholic Pope states "We hold upon this earth the place of
> > > > God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
> >
> > I did some research on this one. It is a lie.
>
> Actually, the quote is real, but Nick took it out of context (big
> surprise - NOT). It is from THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM (Praeclara
> Gratulationis Publicae) dated June 20, 1894. It is distinct from the
> encyclical you posted, THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, which was issued two
> years later.
>
> Here is the entire quote, in context, (from a pro-Catholic site, by the
> way -- http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm --
> also see their impressive list of encyclicals at
> ttp://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/TriumphOfChurch.htm)
>
>
> Edward
Thank you. There are times I love the 'Net.
Edward Curtis
says...
> Here is the entire quote, in context, (from a pro-Catholic site, by the
> way -- http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm --
> also see their impressive list of encyclicals at
> ttp://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/TriumphOfChurch.htm)
Update: Catholicsource ( http://www.geocities.com/catholicsource/ ) has
added a link to the encyclical on, appropriately enough, their Papal
Encyclicals section. (I pointed the link out to them, and the pro-
Catholic stance of the Qwest site. :) )
Edward
Nicholas II
...snip
> What seems clear is you are not getting it. The Bible you are reading
> is a translation into English. The Bible was not written in English nor
> were the original words reported spoken in English. Christ came for all
> people, not just the English speaking world. Maybe you should take a look
> out there. Most of the world does not speak English and at the time of
> Christ no one spoke English. As an English speaker you are in a minority.
excuses excuses excuses and NO SCRIPTURES to prove them. As usual
__________________________
Presents of God ministry
Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with
historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican!
Over 1800 pages of documented facts.
Site locations:
USA - www.remnantofgod.org
USA - www.localline2.com/~nicholas
AUST - www.linearg.com/remnantofgod/
The "major" prophetic facts... Summarized
http://www.remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm
NEW!>!>! ANTICHRIST SLIDESHOW locations
http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/acssmenu.html
http://www.localline2.com/~nicholas/flash/acssmenu.html
http://www.linearg.com/remnantofgod/flash/acssmenu.html
Truth is truth.
...Nicholas
Nicholas II
Please post it here. I don't have time to surf Catholic links, nor do
I desire to do so. Or... are you afraid to post it?
Oh... one more thing... try to do so IN ONE POST? You seem to keep
posting one right after the other. I am getting to the point that when
I see "Edward Curtis" I ignore them automatically.
__________________________
Presents of God ministry
--------------------------
Nicholas II
> Edward Curtis wrote:
> >
> > In article <f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com>, Nicholas II
> > says...
>
> Missed this - but I don't read Ol' Nick's writings usually.
>
>
> > > Fact: Roman Catholic Pope states "We hold upon this earth the place of
> > > God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
>
> I did some research on this one. It is a lie.
>
>
>
> Actually, what Pope Leo XIII actually wrote was (From SATIS COGNITUM (On
> the Unity of the Church) Pope Leo XIII
> Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1896)
Ooops... LIE exposed (again) the actual quote = .
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894,
You got the date AND the quote wrong.
...snipped for obvious reasons...
Edward Curtis
> > > > > http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/18ecume1.htm
> > > > > (I don't have time to read it now, as I have to get to work.)
> > > >
> > > > OK, I did a quick search on the word "God", and came up with:
> > > > "Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the
> > > > sacred council, for an everlasting record."
> > > >
> > > > Referring to the pope of the time, Julius II.
> > > >
> > > > Sure doesn't sound like he's calling himself God to me.
> > > >
> > > > Edward
<some snippage>
> Please post it here. I don't have time to surf Catholic links, nor do
> I desire to do so. Or... are you afraid to post it?
> Oh... one more thing... try to do so IN ONE POST? You seem to keep
> posting one right after the other. I am getting to the point that when
> I see "Edward Curtis" I ignore them automatically.
I said in another post that I wasn't going to reply to you anymore...but
since you asked nicely....
The above quote is from the Fifth Lateran Council, Second Session, 17 May
1512. That is actually just the first occurrence; it seems to be a
"standard opener" for each session of the council; since Julius died
before the council concluded, Leo, his successor as Pope, is named
thereafter.
In one of the sessions Leo presided over there is also the following
quote:
"It is eminently fitting for the Roman pontiff to carry out the duty of a
provident shepherd, in order to care for and keep safe the Lord's flock
entrusted to him by God...." (Fifth Lateran Council, Session 9, 5 May
1514)
Very significant: "Roman Pontiff" is another name for the Pope, and we
see here that the Lord's flock is "entrusted to him BY GOD", ergo the
Pope is not God.
The point of all this? The following quote you provided....
"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the
director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on
earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col.
109
...is alleged on other websites I searched to have been addressed to the
Pope by a priest at this same Council. But YOUR quote is NOT TO BE FOUND
in the Council's official documents. Hence, it is not part of the
Deposit of Faith and can be discarded. Especially since the other
statements above, which ARE part of the Council documents, FLATLY
CONTRADICT IT.
Edward
Larry Thibodeaux
news:f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com:
> Pope Leo XIII
> Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894
For those of you out there that would like to read more than 10 words of
a 6,273 word document, it might be good to place the entire document in
perspective.
1 - It seems rather contradictory if this document said that the pope is
in the place of almighty God and further down that all salvation comes
from Jesus Christ alone.
2 - The "we" is not referencing "the office of the pope". The "we" is
referencing all of the magistarium which is who this entire document is
speaking to.
3 - Just as any true well read Christian (Catholic and Protestant) will
tell you that we ALL make up the body of Christ, the pope is speaking to
the magistarium and saying that we are the body of Christ and that in
this aspect they represent God almighty to people who do not fully
understand the faith. Non Christian people see in us the God we proclaim
as our faith.
4 - I am not going to post further on this topic because I do not feel it
is necessary to further explain this document. I am simply trying to put
the document back into its original context. Anyone can take a quote from
any document and say what they wish. I could take the United States
Declaration of Independence and say "we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies
in War" and justify murder of anyone not American, but as we all know
this is simply not what this document says.
Quote:
A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fulness of that
consolation. Amidst these very mainfestations of public joy and
Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those
who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some
because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they
dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of
Christians.
This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is
impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it
were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience
a sentiment of innermost grief.
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will
have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and
now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on
towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the
example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to
return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that
His Disciples anf followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I
pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee:
that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and
Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus
Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in
Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently
expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that
the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the
Unity of Divine Faith.
Pressed on to Our intent by Charity, that hastens fastest there where
the need is greatest, We direct Our first thoughts to those most
unfortunate of all nations who have never received the light of the
Gospel, or who, after having possessed it, have lost it through neglect
or the vicissitudes of time: Hence do they ignore God, and live in the
depths of error. Now, as all salvation comes from Jesus Christ--for
there is no other Name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be
saved--Our ardent desire is that the most Holy Name of Jesus should
rapidly pervade and fill every land.
May God Bless You And Keep You
Larry Thibodeaux
http://www.catholic-truth.org
Edward Curtis
Thibodeaux says...
> nich...@remnantofgod.org (Nicholas II) wrote in
> news:f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Pope Leo XIII
> > Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894
>
> For those of you out there that would like to read more than 10 words of
> a 6,273 word document, it might be good to place the entire document in
> perspective.
>
Larry,
You make very good points; you explained the encyclical better than I
did. Thanks, brother.
Edward
Larry Thibodeaux
Twas my pleasure. *bows*
Larry Thibodeaux
http://www.catholic-truth.org
Nicholas II
I suppose these are out of context too??????
"Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not top much to say that in
view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods."
-The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus
Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic National
July 1895.
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894,
"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the
director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on
earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col.
109
The title "Lord God the Pope" is found within a gloss of Extravagantes
of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4,
In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, "Dominum Deum
Nostrum Papam" (Our Lord God the Pope) can be found in column 153. In
a Paris edition, they are found in column 140.
"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of Heaven and
earth, and purgatory." Prompta Bibliotheca," Feraris, Vol. VI, p. 26,
art. "Papa."
Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the
Roman pontiff is "the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a
very God;" and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is
because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is "very God and very
man." Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum, (on the
transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice
(2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales,
col. 205
"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land... He is the
vicegerent (replacement) of Christ, who is not only a Priest forever,
but also King of kings and Lord of lords." - La Civilia Cattolica,
March 18, 1871, quoted in Leonard Woosely Bacaon, An inside view of
the Vatican Council (American Tract Society ed.), p.229, n.
The Bull Unam Sanctam... Issued by POPE BONIFACE VIII reads as
follows:
"The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We
declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman
Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation that which
was spoken of Christ 'thou has subdued all things under his feet' may
well seem verified in me... I have the authority of the King of Kings.
I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of
God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can
do."
"Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff;... but all power in
heaven and in earth has been given to Christ;... therefore the chief
pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power." Corpus Juris chap. 1
column 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano
Pontiff
Thanks again Ed. I knew you would eventually allow me to prove you
WRONG (again)
...Nicholas
www.RemnantofGod.org
Nicholas II
...snip
>
> Thank you. There are times I love the 'Net.
Yup me too. It allows me to show who the liars are. Did ya notice Ed's snafu?
...Nicholas
www.RemnantofGod.org
Edward Curtis
says...
> I suppose these are out of context too??????
>
> "Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not top much to say that in
> view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods."
> -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36
Ligouri is often taken out of context. I'm not familiar with his
writings, so I'll let someone else comment.
> "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus
> Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic National
> July 1895.
As I stated in another post, this is not an official Catholic source.
> "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
> Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894,
Are you absolutely BLIND??? This is the very quote in the post you
responded to, that I showed you were taking out of context!!!
It's clear to me now that you only see what you want to see.
I'm through with you.
Edward
Edward Curtis
> follows:
>
> "The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We
> declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman
> Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation that which
> was spoken of Christ 'thou has subdued all things under his feet' may
> well seem verified in me... I have the authority of the King of Kings.
> I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of
> God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can
> do."
One final thing before I shake your dust from my feet. The above is NOT
in Unam Sanctum. The 'genuine article', if you care to read it, is at
http://www.geocities.com/papalencyclicals/Bon08/B8unam.htm
Though I expect you'll have objections to that, too; some of the
language is similar, but there is NOTHING resembling the last sentence
above.
To sum up, you're either lying again, or you need to check your sources.
Goodbye.
Edward
Nicholas II
Goodbye? Are you sure? Your not going to have 10 more "final
thoughts?" ;)
Such CoNfUsIoN folks, and did you notice WHEN he decided to say he was
"through with me?" After he got an opportunity to see that I posted
the same quote from Pope Leo in the MANY NEW ones. He NEVER proved it
wrong, but the main reason he is running off is because he knows that
I have MANY MORE quotes from the Popes declaring themselves GOD ON
EARTH, and he knows he can't keep lying and saying "there out of
context". He will eventually have to give up, or actually IGNORE and
or SKIP OVER certain quotes to comment on the ones he THINKS he can
lie around. Fact is HE DID THAT IN THIS POST! He only commented on the
FEW that he felt he could lie about. The others? He strangly left
alone???
Fact is, that's why the "usual crowd" of Truth Bashers have backed
off. They usually attack my stuff whenever they feel they can twist
Scriptures or even take ME out of context. But if you notice, even
these hate filled Catholics REFUSE to tread where such evidence is
supported. They have done this for YEARS on my stuff. They allow the
"newbies" the chance to be EXPOSED instead. why? They are tired of how
easy the Truth I preach exposes THEM. Tey are tired of being PUT IN
THEUR PLACE. They are tired of havinbg such Rock hard 100% graphic
proof EXPOSING THEIR LIES. So... they back off. Comes from experience
I guess.. :)
...Nicholas
www.RemnantofGod.org
TRUTH IS TRUTH!
Nicholas II
Oh... one more thing...
Thanks again Ed
<sniker> I couldn't resist! Not to worry... I won't post 10 MORE
POSTS to say the same thing. One should make the point clear ;)
(It's almost as if he is posting to himself. I wonder Ed... do you
like to hear yourself talk too?)
...Nicholas
www.RemnantofGod.org
Truth is AWESOME!
Nicholas II
> In article <f23369b9.0201...@posting.google.com>, Nicholas II
> says...
> > I suppose these are out of context too??????
> >
> > "Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not top much to say that in
> > view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods."
> > -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36
>
> Ligouri is often taken out of context. I'm not familiar with his
> writings, so I'll let someone else comment.
But you DID comment. you said he is OFTEN taken out of context yet,
YOU CAN'T PROVE IT? Me thinks a LIE is afoot here folks. You would
think that if Ed has MANY FACTS that prove as he says , "Ligouri is
"OFTEN" taken out of context he would share at least a dozen or so???
(Obvious Ed)
>
> > "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus
> > Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic National
> > July 1895.
>
> As I stated in another post, this is not an official Catholic source.
You should learn from your fellow Truth bashers that thi sexcuse is
not easily seen as just that. AN EXCUSE by those who simply can't
handle the obvious facts. When they find themselves trapped in a
corner they lash out with a LIE. Plain and simple.
It IS an official Catholic source folks. The Catholic church has
actually blessed ALL of us with TONS of facts. PLUS... ever notice
this? Whenever a CATHOLIC PRIEST or Cardinal or Bishop or even
Catholic Authors come to the TRUTH and start to publish works EXPOSING
THE CHURCH. the rest of the Catholic still embracing the lies jump to
the forefront to yell, HE CAN'T QUOTE FOR THE CHURCH! HE'S EVIL NOW!
IGNORE HIM! IGNORE HIM!! Pr.. they simply say... THIS IS NOT AN
OFFICIAL CATHOLIC SOURCE.
>
> > "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII
> > Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894,
>
> Are you absolutely BLIND??? This is the very quote in the post you
> responded to, that I showed you were taking out of context!!!
>
> It's clear to me now that you only see what you want to see.
>
> I'm through with you.
Not even a clever cop out folks. Ed knows he can't effectively keep
lying about the MANY OTHER quotes I shared. So... he is running off.
Not surprised either. His cohorts have been doing this for years.
However, most of them know when the "egg on their face" is becoming
apparent, so they usually high tail it far sooner.
>
> Edward
...Nicholas
"Heaven-ward"
MMSICILIANA
nich...@remnantofgod.org (Nicholas II) writes:
Nick, you are wrong and you are sinning against Christ who built His Church
upon Peter. As Christ said to Paul on the road to Damascus, "Saul, Saul, why
are you persecuting me?" You have been persecuting Christ on these newsgroups.
I have now brought your sin to your attention. Will you hear me? Will I gain
you, my brother?
The Lord bless you and keep you.
The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace.
Numbers 6: 24-26
Thornhill Broom
snafu?
>
> ...Nicholas
> www.RemnantofGod.org
You are not an educated man, i.e. you analytic abilities
are very low , you take statements out of context, and your quest
for truth is tainted by the prejudices which are hidden in your mind(to you)
and
color everything you read. --These kind of people exist
everywhere(politics,religion,ideology,coffeshop) and you
are one.
Its very obvious you arent University Material and have never attained a
Degree.
Although you do put alot of energy into your obsessions, you are not a
seeker or teller
of Truth, you are nothing but an UnThinking PreProgrammed Filter.
Just my $2 bucks worth of analysis, which is a little more indepth than
the 2 cent version. -- been to your site also!
Nicholas II
Go ahead and try to use MAN'S WORDS to hurt me. I will use GOD'S WORD
to enlighten you.
James 1:26, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth
not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is
vain."
Your unbridled tongue proves your religion is a sham. Leave now.
...Nicholas
Truth is truth!
Thornhill Broom
to somehow
gain some advantage in a personal argument.
Tsk Tsk Tsk!
Lesser minds, which surely includes yours , also pull out the
'My Congregation is Holier than Yours' to prove their authenticity and
Truth.
Your Just Full of Sham Arguments!
It all comes down to my appraisal of your Analytical Skills.
Which I discussed in full earlier and below.
The Horsepower of your mind, --you got no torque boy!!
May I suggest a course in Expository Writing!
Expository writing is the art/style of writing truly convincing argument.
Then you wouldn't feel so beholden to spew your Out of Context arguments,
taken
from Illegitamite Sources. But then again it would constrain your prolific
'Attacks'
as you would learn to be Intellectually Honest, instead of an 'End Justifies
the Means'
or anything goes Attacker.
And yes you are an Attacker not a Debater, because your arguments are
intellectually
dishonest.
Nobody in here minds honest Intellectual Debate, but you can't seem to
provide that.
You miss the mark, boy!
Your the Communist Paper, thats calling all of us and Capitalism, 'Imperial
Capitalists Pigs', you
dont know TRUTH.
I enjoy conflicting debate about the Bible, but your an Idiologue( closed
minded, obsessed with your beliefs,
instead of being capable of following the truth).
Intellectually speaking.....a boy!
I'll be you just adore and are Jack Chicks biggest fan ,heh , heh???
"Nicholas II" <nich...@remnantofgod.org> wrote in message
news:f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com...
Nicholas II
..snipped his rantings and insults. (No Scriptures tho... )
Here's a Scripture for you Thorn...
1Timothy 6:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing
nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof
cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings
of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that
gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Your hate filled words prove I am not to bother with the likes of you.
I am just obeying the Word you seem to think I don't understand. I
withdraw myself from you and from commenting to you further :)
Joseph Meehan
3. This is what you are to teach and urge. Anyone who teaches anything
different and does not keep to the sound teaching which is that of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the doctrine which is in accordance with true religion,
4. is proud and has no understanding, but rather a weakness for questioning
everything and arguing about words. All that can come of this is jealousy,
contention, abuse and evil mistrust;
5. and unending disputes by people who are depraved in mind and deprived of
truth, and imagine that religion is a way of making a profit.
6. Religion, of course, does bring large profits, but only to those who are
content with what they have.
7. We brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it;
8. but as long as we have food and clothing, we shall be content with that.
9. People who long to be rich are a prey to trial; they get trapped into all
sorts of foolish and harmful ambitions which plunge people into ruin and
destruction.
10. `The love of money is the root of all evils" and there are some who,
pursuing it, have wandered away from the faith and so given their souls any
number of fatal wounds.
Good quote, but read it carefully and consider how YOU fit in.
AgThorn
>I pray wholeheartedly that ALL Catholics get used to going to
>their Bibles before and after they ask a Priest for advice. This is
>what will open their eyes.
is the first good advise that I have read from Nicholas in the last 3 of his
messages that I have just read.
One should always consult the scriptures, before, during and after seeking
help from anyone, including your priest. And I am sure the priest would
agree.
In Jesus Name,
AgThorn
"Nicholas II" <nich...@remnantofgod.org> wrote in message
news:f23369b9.02012...@posting.google.com...
Theodore M. Seeber
> Now this:
> >I pray wholeheartedly that ALL Catholics get used to going to
> >their Bibles before and after they ask a Priest for advice. This is
> >what will open their eyes.
>
> is the first good advise that I have read from Nicholas in the last 3 of his
> messages that I have just read.
>
> One should always consult the scriptures, before, during and after seeking
> help from anyone, including your priest. And I am sure the priest would
> agree.
While the priest would, as would most of the clergy of the Post-Vatican II
Church, I'm no longer sure that I do, especially after 9-11-2001, when we
saw what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has done in the Wahhabi sect of
Islam. I trace that directly to the supreme lack of Episcopal control,
a lack that I also see in several of the American forms of Christianity.
And thus, a question, which should lead us to a deeper dialog on this topic,
and which is not intended as insult to any Sola Scriptura believer:
How do you tell the difference between your own subconcious leading you
to read only the verses that agree with your personal sins (there are verses
all over the Bible that do, a case in point is Ecclesiastes 5:1-3, which appears
to counsel young women to abort their children because of the evil of the world),
as opposed to the Holy Spirit leading your Bible Study?
As a Gen-X Catholic, the ONLY method I have is to compare what I find to what
the Church teaches. Increasingly I am doing that without the aid of a priest,
but one needs to acknowledge the teaching power of Christ and the Apostles,
and the priest is the local representative of that teaching power (in fact, it is his
ordained mission to emulate Christ as closely as possible. Because priests
are human too, his accomplishment of that mission varies according to personal
ability and sins, but that does not diminish the fact that they are the chosen
representative).
Without that guiding focus, I fear that heresy and becoming an antiChrist myself isn't
far behind, especially given my feelings and thoughts directly after 9-11 (suffice it to say
if I was President instead of Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia would be glowing
in the dark by now, and be uninhabitable for the next thousand years or so).
Obviously, I have the capability of becoming the AntiChrist if I choose, as does any human
being. And allowing personal scripture interpretation encourages such arrogance.
Ted
--
Family Websites: http://seeberfamily.org
Geocache Kit: http://tupperware.seeberfamily.org/geocachekit
Thornhill Broom
"AgThorn" <wds*nospam*@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Yyo58.53353$B61.18...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
> Now this:
> >I pray wholeheartedly that ALL Catholics get used to going to
> >their Bibles before and after they ask a Priest for advice. This is
> >what will open their eyes.
>
> is the first good advise that I have read from Nicholas in the last 3 of
his
> messages that I have just read.
>
Yeah, if you can get past his posting a 100 or so snippets of
text that either looked or smelled funny to him. All of which dont include
context!!
And many of which are not from Legitimate or Relevant Sources.
...Like who really cares if some local yocal writer from some Local Catholic
Paper
messed up and gave Nicholas some stupid quote about the Pope which isnt
even presented in context.
...Like thats supposed to be impressive and a Strike against the Church and
the Pope!
Nicholas is an idiot!
He must have an easy time convincing idiots, but his Act smells bad to those
of Us
that can analyze and think!
agthorn
"Theodore M. Seeber" <Mike...@seeberfamily.org> wrote in message
news:d6q58.72105$h31.4...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> In message <Yyo58.53353$B61.18...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>, "AgThorn"
<wds*nospam*@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Now this:
> > >I pray wholeheartedly that ALL Catholics get used to going to
> > >their Bibles before and after they ask a Priest for advice. This is
> > >what will open their eyes.
> >
> > is the first good advise that I have read from Nicholas in the last 3 of
his
> > messages that I have just read.
> >
> > One should always consult the scriptures, before, during and after
seeking
> > help from anyone, including your priest. And I am sure the priest would
> > agree.
>
> While the priest would, as would most of the clergy of the Post-Vatican II
> Church, I'm no longer sure that I do, especially after 9-11-2001, when we
> saw what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has done in the Wahhabi sect of
> Islam.
Wow .. is that a cut and paste or what ... What does Sola Scriptura have to
do with the Wahhabi sect of Islam? They don't follow the Holy Word of God,
they follow the instructions of a Mohammed and they don't even do that well.
Regardless of your desire to NOT offend (as stated later in your post), this
was a very careless construction of words that ties two totally unrelated
items together.
> I trace that directly to the supreme lack of Episcopal control,
> a lack that I also see in several of the American forms of Christianity.
One can make the same claim within the Catholic church when you look at all
the fighting going on between traditionalists, modernist, anti-Vatican II,
feminist, etc. The American form of Catholicism is far different than the
European as well. I respect the Pope and what he is trying to from the top,
the ideal of a leader of one church is attractive to all. It is just sad
that the ideal does not carry on down to the masses as it should.
> And thus, a question, which should lead us to a deeper dialog on this
topic,
> and which is not intended as insult to any Sola Scriptura believer:
Too late, your paralleling Sola Scripture to the Wahhabi sect.
> How do you tell the difference between your own subconscious leading you
> to read only the verses that agree with your personal sins (there are
verses
> all over the Bible that do, a case in point is Ecclesiastes 5:1-3, which
appears
> to counsel young women to abort their children because of the evil of the
world),
> as opposed to the Holy Spirit leading your Bible Study?
Well, let's see .....
5:1 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God; for to draw nigh to
hear is better than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they know not that
they do evil.
5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter
anything before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore
let thy words be few.
5:3 For a dream cometh with a multitude of business, and a fool's voice with
a multitude of words.
Seems like a stretch for anyone to use the above verses to justify abortion
.... want to try another example?
Further, as I have already said, the "ideal" of one leader, instructing us
all is a wonderful ideal. However that has proved to not be attainable,
mainly because of the faults of man. History within the Catholic Church,
and without. And this very problem, i.e.. with man, gives us the
foundational need behind the concept of Sola Scriptura. To apply this
"concept" to a book that is NOT of the God is your mistake in your analogy.
Applying this to the Word of God, ABOVE, the dictates of man ... hence
simply stating that the church is also subject to the Word is the basis of
this precept.
> As a Gen-X Catholic, the ONLY method I have is to compare what I find to
what
> the Church teaches.
That is a good point of comparison. But then again comparing the Word of
God to what other Christian denominations hold as their foundations of
faith, would also be a good exercise.
> Increasingly I am doing that without the aid of a priest,
Have you ever found a priest to possibly teach in error? Do you fully
interpret everything that you study in the Word of God based on the beliefs
of the RCC? No judgment, just points of discussion.
> but one needs to acknowledge the teaching power of Christ and the
Apostles,
Absolutely.
> and the priest is the local representative of that teaching power (in
fact, it is his
> ordained mission to emulate Christ as closely as possible. Because
priests
> are human too, his accomplishment of that mission varies according to
personal
> ability and sins, but that does not diminish the fact that they are the
chosen
> representative).
true, in the RCC, and the priests, pastors, deacons and elders of the other
Christian denominations are also the local representative of that teaching
power, i.e. as handed down by the Apostles.
> Without that guiding focus, I fear that heresy and becoming an antiChrist
myself isn't
> far behind, especially given my feelings and thoughts directly after 9-11
(suffice it to say
> if I was President instead of Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia
would be glowing
> in the dark by now, and be uninhabitable for the next thousand years or
so).
Thank God for Sola Scriptura! ;-)
> Obviously, I have the capability of becoming the AntiChrist if I choose,
as does any human
> being. And allowing personal scripture interpretation encourages such
arrogance.
> Ted
personal scripture interpretations are healthy and welcome in any growing
church. The point is, do those interpretations grow in a vacuum or in a
church body? The Word of God is not difficult to follow and understand,
except where the institutional church has historically wanted it to appear
to be.
Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little
children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs
to such as these."
Let's not USE God's Word to elevate the institutional church as it's sole
interpreter.
In Jesus Name,
Bill
MMSICILIANA
Ted wrote:
<< How do you tell the difference between your own subconscious leading you to
read only the verses that agree with your personal sins (there are verses all
over the Bible that do, a case in point is Ecclesiastes 5:1-3, which appears to
counsel young women to abort their children because of the evil of the world),
as opposed to the Holy Spirit leading your Bible Study?>>
Bill wrote:
<<Well, let's see .....
5:1 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God; for to draw nigh to hear
is better than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they know not that they do
evil.
5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter
anything before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let
thy words be few.
5:3 For a dream cometh with a multitude of business, and a fool's voice with a
multitude of words.>>
Actually, Ted was referring to Ecclesiastes 4: 1-3 which in the AKJV is
translated:
4: 1 So I returned and considered all the opressions that are done under the
sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter;
and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
4: 2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living
which are yet alive.
4: 3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not
seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
Ted is saying that a person contemplating an abortion could read this scripture
as a permission to obtain the abortion. Then Ted asks, how do you tell the
difference between your own subconscious leading your interpretation of
Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit guiding your study of Scripture? How can
you be sure that your interpretation is the correct interpretation?
Bill wrote:
<<Further, as I have already said, the "ideal" of one leader, instructing us
all is a wonderful ideal. However that has proved to not be attainable,
mainly because of the faults of man. >>
Hmmmm......you mean like the failure of the entire human race to follow Jesus?
You mean like the failure of Jesus' own followers to continue following him
when he said something they refused to accept? (John 6: 66)
Bill wrote:
<<History within the Catholic Church, and without. And this very problem,
i.e.. with man, gives us the foundational need behind the concept of Sola
Scriptura. To apply this "concept" to a book that is NOT of the God is your
mistake in your analogy.
Applying this to the Word of God, ABOVE, the dictates of man ... hence simply
stating that the church is also subject to the Word is the basis of this
precept.>>
Ummmmmm, no. By saying the Bible is *the* "Word of God" you have just made the
Bible *your* god. The "Word of God" is Jesus Christ. See John 1:1-2. Jesus
Christ is the entire self-revelation of God to us--not the Bible. The Bible is
the written self-revelation of God to us, but the Bible does not contain
everything God wanted to reveal to us--it can't--it's a limited book. See John
21: 25. Everything God wanted to reveal to us was revealed to us in Jesus
Christ. And when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, he sent the eleven to go
forth and preach and teach the Gospel to the whole world. See 1 John 1: 4
They were the first bishops in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is
still preaching the apostolic teaching today.
Ted wrote:
<< As a Gen-X Catholic, the ONLY method I have is to compare what I find to
what
the Church teaches.>>
Bill wrote:
<<That is a good point of comparison. But then again comparing the Word of
God to what other Christian denominations hold as their foundations of faith,
would also be a good exercise.>>
Besides the Scriptures, what are the foundations of faith for other Christian
denominations?
Ted wrote:
<< Increasingly I am doing that without the aid of a priest,>>
Bill wrote:
<<Have you ever found a priest to possibly teach in error? Do you fully
interpret everything that you study in the Word of God based on the beliefs of
the RCC? No judgment, just points of discussion.>>
Of course a *priest* could teach error. A priest is a human being. The
*Church,* however, cannot teach error. The Church is the Body of Christ. The
Church is lead by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Christ promised to remain
with His Church forever until the end of time. And Christ promised that the
Church He built upon Peter (Rock) would prevail against the gates of hell.
Ted wrote:
<< but one needs to acknowledge the teaching power of Christ and the
Apostles,>>
Bill wrote:
<<Absolutely.>>
Ted wrote:
<<and the priest is the local representative of that teaching power (in fact,
it is his
ordained mission to emulate Christ as closely as possible. Because priests
are human too, his accomplishment of that mission varies according to personal
ability and sins, but that does not diminish the fact that they are the chosen
representative).>>
Bill wrote:
<<true, in the RCC, and the priests, pastors, deacons and elders of the other
Christian denominations are also the local representative of that teaching
power, i.e. as handed down by the Apostles.>>
But how is that "teaching power" "handed down" in other Christian
denominations? In the Catholic Church, it is handed down in an unbroken line
stretching from the apostles. It is handed down in the "laying on of hands" in
the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Ted wrote:
<< Without that guiding focus, I fear that heresy and becoming an antiChrist
myself isn't far behind, especially given my feelings and thoughts directly
after 9-11 (suffice it to say if I was President instead of Bush:
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia
would be glowing in the dark by now, and be uninhabitable for the next thousand
years or so).>>
Bill wrote:
<<Thank God for Sola Scriptura! ;-) >>
No, thank God for the constant, ongoing teaching of the apostles as handed down
in the Catholic Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. ;-)
Ted wrote:
<< Obviously, I have the capability of becoming the AntiChrist if I choose, as
does any human being. And allowing personal scripture interpretation
encourages such
arrogance.>>
Bill wrote:
<<personal scripture interpretations are healthy and welcome in any growing
church. The point is, do those interpretations grow in a vacuum or in a church
body? The Word of God is not difficult to follow and understand, except where
the institutional church has historically wanted it to appear to be.>>
Hmmmm.....I disagree. And so do the Scripture themselves.
2 Peter 1: 20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.
2 Peter 3: 15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written
unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are
some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Bill quoted:
<<Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little
children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to
such as these.">>
Which actually says nothing about whether it is easy to understand the
Scriptures....it says that those who are members of Christ's Church must be
child like. And children trust their elders. Children believe what is told to
them by adults. The bishops and the Pope are the elders and the adults in the
Church.
Bill wrote:
<<Let's not USE God's Word to elevate the institutional church as it's sole
interpreter.>>
But the Scriptures plainly tell us that they are not to be privately
interpreted. And Jesus plainly tells us that he gives the authority and the
duty to lead the Church on earth to Peter when he says, "You are Rock and on
this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. I give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you
declare bound on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on
earth is loosed in heaven." Later, he also gives the other apostles--the first
bishops--the power and the authority to bind and loose, but it is only
Peter--the first pope--who receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
So, the choice is up to you. Are you going to continue to privately interpret
the Scriptures, or are you going to become as a little child and allow yourself
to be taught by those Christ has placed in positions of authority over you?
Hebrews 13: 17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch
for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy,
and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
agthorn
news:20020201145301...@mb-df.news.cs.com...
That's much better, but it is still a stretch to find Abortion within these
verses. If someone picks up the bible to justify a wrongful act, and open's
randomly, I would hazard a guess that many verses (taken out of context)
could lead many astray. But that is no different than any "read" versus
"study" comparison. If one seriously seeks God in the scriptures, the
scriptures are NOT Rocket Science.
> Bill wrote:
> <<Further, as I have already said, the "ideal" of one leader, instructing
us
> all is a wonderful ideal. However that has proved to not be attainable,
> mainly because of the faults of man. >>
>
> Hmmmm......you mean like the failure of the entire human race to follow
Jesus?
> You mean like the failure of Jesus' own followers to continue following
him
> when he said something they refused to accept? (John 6: 66)
Good notice. No, I am referring to one human leader trying to take the
place of man. We are frail and history has shown that power corrupts ...
Hence, Sola Scriptura is pure, it points strictly to the overall governing
power of the Word of God over the church. It is the Church's duty to carry
out God's teachings, as poorly as it has at times the Holy Spirit has kept
His Guiding Word upon us.
> Bill wrote:
> <<History within the Catholic Church, and without. And this very problem,
> i.e.. with man, gives us the foundational need behind the concept of Sola
> Scriptura. To apply this "concept" to a book that is NOT of God is your
> mistake in your analogy.
> Applying this to the Word of God, ABOVE, the dictates of man ... hence
simply
> stating that the church is also subject to the Word is the basis of this
> precept.>>
> Ummmmmm, no. By saying the Bible is *the* "Word of God" you have just
made the
> Bible *your* god.
Hardly, but constant references to Mary as the mother of God has led many
people to wrongful worship; reference to the Bible as God's Word is very
Christian in dead, as multiple references in even Catholic writings, as well
as the Holy Fathers will attest. By putting a person or a church body or
institution above the Word of God, as history has shown THAT is when you get
out of alignment and THAT is the precept of Sola Scriptura.
>The "Word of God" is Jesus Christ. See John 1:1-2. Jesus
> Christ is the entire self-revelation of God to us--not the Bible. The
Bible is
> the written self-revelation of God to us, but the Bible does not contain
> everything God wanted to reveal to us--it can't--it's a limited book. See
John
> 21: 25. Everything God wanted to reveal to us was revealed to us in Jesus
> Christ. And when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, he sent the eleven to
go
> forth and preach and teach the Gospel to the whole world. See 1 John 1: 4
> They were the first bishops in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church
is
> still preaching the apostolic teaching today.
Yes, John wrote beautifully and labeled our Savior as the Word. This
spiritual form of writing does not remove the writings about Jesus from also
being labeled the Word. The point is that He is with us forever, and if it
was not for the capturing of the Good News, and the Epistles, and the
History that went before that pointed to Our Savior, we would have a really
twisted faith today. (as any simple review of the ever changing Book of
Mormon, the constant rewrites by the Jehovah Witnesses, the twisted logic
and results of the Koran, etc.) The Word of God, as preserved by those
that went before us, when properly studied is the best way to experience our
Savior. Let's not play semantics with John's poetic reference to Jesus as
the Word to take away from all the preserved writings about Jesus Christ as
being properly referred to as the Word of God. Consult Justin Martyr,
Augustine,
etc.
"Then I answered, "I know that, as the word of God says, this great wisdom
of God, the Maker of all things, and the Almighty, is hid from you.
Wherefore, in sympathy with you, I am striving to the utmost that you may
understand these matters which to you are paradoxical; but if not, that I
myself may be innocent in the day of judgment. " Justin Martyr
I understand that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church to go no farther
than to label them as "inspired books" ... but let's just leave our
difference there. It would be very difficult for the RCC to accept Sola
Scriptura, since it was one of the primary reasons for the Reformation.
Thank Goodness Paul appreciated Luther's plight 1500 years earlier! ;-)
Ephesians 6:14-17
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with
the breastplate of righteousness in place,
15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel
of peace.
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can
extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the
WORD of GOD.
> Ted wrote:
> << As a Gen-X Catholic, the ONLY method I have is to compare what I find
to
> what
> the Church teaches.>>
>
> Bill wrote:
> <<That is a good point of comparison. But then again comparing the Word
of
> God to what other Christian denominations hold as their foundations of
faith,
> would also be a good exercise.>>
>
> Besides the Scriptures, what are the foundations of faith for other
Christian
> denominations?
Sola Scriptura comes to mind as one. We could really make this discussion
long by dissecting multiple denominations faith statements. Pentecostal,
Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. I'll save that discussion for
another thread.
> Ted wrote:
> << Increasingly I am doing that without the aid of a priest,>>
>
> Bill wrote:
> <<Have you ever found a priest to possibly teach in error? Do you fully
> interpret everything that you study in the Word of God based on the
beliefs of
> the RCC? No judgment, just points of discussion.>>
> Of course a *priest* could teach error. A priest is a human being. The
> *Church,* however, cannot teach error. The Church is the Body of Christ.
The
> Church is lead by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Christ promised to
remain
> with His Church forever until the end of time. And Christ promised that
the
> Church He built upon Peter (Rock) would prevail against the gates of hell.
This belief is what continues to divide the East and West, and Catholics
from Protestants. Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption ... as innocent
as these beliefs are in themselves (although in many countries, they have
taken on much more than an innocent teaching), it is the fact that the
Church says these are the infallible truth, and that you must believe to be
a good catholic. And then in polls it has shown that there are so many
unbelievers but the church just turns its head and ignores.
Christ has remained with His Church, through His Word and the study of the
History leading up to our Savior, His Testament and the teachings of the
Apostles after His Ascension. Christ did NOT promise to stick with one
church, headquartered in Rome. I know this is the foundation of your
belief, so I won't ask you to argue it but that is also a major foundational
defect that has divided the Church for over a 1000 years. I continue to
feel positive to the "ideals" of the Catholic Church, i.e. to be united as
one. But it is the method's seen through history that has kept that from
happening.
Wonderful ceremonies all. Very reverend indeed. But a simple study of
Jesus' Word shows anyone that He didn't put much faith in "ceremonies,
traditions, and genealogies" ... If the heart is not with our Savior, the
head doesn't matter.
No one should rely on "tradition" alone for salvation. This false following
leads many so called Christians to hell.
Matthew 7:22-24
22 Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you
evildoers!'
24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into
practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
To take Jesus' clear instructions and to put "tradition" ahead of truly
getting to know our Savior is a travesty, not just of the RCC but of
Orthodox, and many old line Protestant faiths as well. Salvation is not
some tradition to be handed down like some inheritance of lineage, as with
Kings and Queens. Faith is from within, from the heart and a proper study
of God's Word is what will bring you to being an excellent leader of His
Word. It is the fallacy of man that will ignore this simple request of
Jesus, and assume that the Church will be sufficient for salvation. It is
admittedly also a fallacy of man to similarly go blindly behind some
eloquent preacher and make the same mistake. Both are in error. Put no man
or institution above the Word of God. The Word is there for YOU to study
and understand and ask questions and move forward in your walk with our
Savior.
> Ted wrote:
> << Obviously, I have the capability of becoming the AntiChrist if I
choose, as
> does any human being. And allowing personal scripture interpretation
> encourages such
> arrogance.>>
>
> Bill wrote:
> <<personal scripture interpretations are healthy and welcome in any
growing
> church. The point is, do those interpretations grow in a vacuum or in a
church
> body? The Word of God is not difficult to follow and understand, except
where
> the institutional church has historically wanted it to appear to be.>>
>
> Hmmmm.....I disagree. And so do the Scripture themselves.
> 2 Peter 1: 20
> Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
> interpretation.
And here we have a good example of taking one verse out of context to
justify some requirement that you must not "interpret" i.e. study. What do
you think study is? Perhaps my wording should have been different. When
one "study's" a verse or section that they are unfamiliar with, one will
wonder if it means this or that ... that is "interpretation". Should this
be checked? but of course.
2 Peter 1:19-21
19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do
well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until
the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about
by the prophet's own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from
God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
I emphasize the teaching about the Holy Spirit. Should one be leery of a
"prophet" that was self taught? In most cases, yes. Was Jesus
"self-taught"? He worked within the structure of the institutional church
as far as it would go, but it was hardened against any fulfillment of the
scriptures other than through how they interpreted it. This is a similar
problem we have today where the RCC claims sole rights at Bible
interpretation (although not as bad, but still similar) with the fear of
loosing it's hold on its followers.
Any interpretation of the few parts of the bible that one might wonder about
(since the bulk of it is clear for even a child) should of course be checked
with the elders of your own church. One needs to study, one needs to
understand, one needs to ask questions. If we sit and wait for others to
interpret the Word of God for us, we will never read it ... as has been the
history of the Catholic Church (noted that it is changing lately).
> Bill quoted:
> <<Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the
little
> children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God
belongs to
> such as these.">>
>
> Which actually says nothing about whether it is easy to understand the
> Scriptures....it says that those who are members of Christ's Church must
be
> child like. And children trust their elders. Children believe what is
told to
> them by adults. The bishops and the Pope are the elders and the adults in
the
> Church.
It says quite a bit about the ease of understanding the Testament of Christ,
the story of the Holy Land, whatever you want to call it. Would one have a
hard time in Hebrews at the age of 6? Certainly, but we are chasing gnats
with that. The price that our Savior has paid for us, what we are to do to
live in His model, the commandments and the law that preceded our Savior
.... all this is NOT in need of a doctorate of theology to comprehend, but
simply a strong desire, a child like faith, to comprehend fully our Savior
.... i.e. it has everything to do with the Scriptures.
> Bill wrote:
> <<Let's not USE God's Word to elevate the institutional church as it's
sole
> interpreter.>>
>
> But the Scriptures plainly tell us that they are not to be privately
> interpreted. And Jesus plainly tells us that he gives the authority and
the
> duty to lead the Church on earth to Peter when he says, "You are Rock and
on
> this rock I will build my Church.
This is your belief and we will leave it as that. If that were mine, I
would be Catholic. This is a wonderful example of creative twisting of the
Scriptures to imply that Peter is the rock, and Jesus' Testament, i.e. the
Word, is not. The "rock" is used throughout the scriptures to indicate
foundation.
Matthew 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them
into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."
Any faith based on Sola Scriptura can easily use this verse of Matthew to
make the same claim that we differ on. i.e. the RCC finds the reference to
Rock when speaking to Peter "convenient" to justify their "claim" of
sovereignty over what is not meant to be "of man". We can leave this one
alone since I know where I am and I don't hope to change anyone to my
belief, but just to give you an understanding of the differences.
> bishops--the power and the authority to bind and loose, but it is only
> Peter--the first pope--who receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Well, we know THAT isn't in the Word of God. ;-)
> So, the choice is up to you. Are you going to continue to privately
interpret
> the Scriptures, or are you going to become as a little child and allow
yourself
> to be taught by those Christ has placed in positions of authority over
you?
Been there, done that. I have stated that the "model" that the RCC would
like to put forth is an attractive one. It just has failed for the masses
over the eon's. The architecture is attractive, but Jesus is not about
"architecture", He is about knowing Him. The RCC has a long way to go (in
this persons opinion) to get itself in a position of truly preaching and
teaching God's Word. Private Study of the Scriptures is encouraged. I did
not find that to be the case when I was a member of the RCC.
> Hebrews 13: 17
> Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they
watch
> for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with
joy,
> and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
In that I do, I obey my Savior, I put my full faith in Him. I see many
Catholics that do also, but I see even more non-Catholic church goers that
are much more focused on God's Word and not man's traditions.
In Jesus Name,
William
MMSICILIANA
<< How do you tell the difference between your own subconscious leading you to
read only the verses that agree with your personal sins (there are verses all
over the Bible that do, a case in point is Ecclesiastes 5:1-3, which appears to
counsel young women to abort their children because of the evil of the world),
as opposed to the Holy Spirit leading your Bible Study?>>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<< Ted was referring to Ecclesiastes 4: 1-3 which in the AKJV is translated:
4: 1 So I returned and considered all the opressions that are done under the
sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter;
and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
4: 2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living
which are yet alive.
4: 3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not
seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
Ted is saying that a person contemplating an abortion could read this scripture
as a permission to obtain the abortion. Then Ted asks, how do you tell the
difference between your own subconscious leading your interpretation of
Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit guiding your study of Scripture? How can
you be sure that your interpretation is the correct interpretation?>>
Bill wrote:
<<That's much better, but it is still a stretch to find Abortion within these
verses.>>
Not really. The Scriptures say, "Better is the one who has not been, who has
not seen the evil work under the sun." Sometimes people justify evil acts by
re-inventing them as good, loving acts, i.e.--euthanasia.
Bill wrote:
<<If someone picks up the bible to justify a wrongful act, and open's randomly,
I would hazard a guess that many verses (taken out of context) could lead many
astray. But that is no different than any "read" versus "study" comparison.
If one seriously seeks God in the scriptures, the scriptures are NOT Rocket
Science.>>
But you still haven't answered the question. How can you be sure that your
interpretation is the correct interpretation?
Bill wrote:
<<Further, as I have already said, the "ideal" of one leader, instructing us
all is a wonderful ideal. However that has proved to not be attainable,
mainly because of the faults of man. >>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<<Hmmmm......you mean like the failure of the entire human race to follow
Jesus? You mean like the failure of Jesus' own followers to continue
following him when he said something they refused to accept? (John 6: 66)>>
Bill wrote:
<<Good notice. No, I am referring to one human leader trying to take the place
of man. We are frail and history has shown that power corrupts ... Hence, Sola
Scriptura is pure, it points strictly to the overall governing power of the
Word of God over the church. It is the Church's duty to carry out God's
teachings, as poorly as it has at times the Holy Spirit has kept His Guiding
Word upon us.>>
My point is that human beings did not follow EVEN Jesus Christ. Yet you
believe they are to follow the written word of God. Once again, you are
proving that to you, the Bible is more divine than Christ Himself. You have
made the Bible into your god.
Bill wrote:
<<History within the Catholic Church, and without. And this very problem,
i.e.. with man, gives us the foundational need behind the concept of Sola
Scriptura. To apply this "concept" to a book that is NOT of God is your
mistake in your analogy. Applying this to the Word of God, ABOVE, the dictates
of man ... hence simply stating that the church is also subject to the Word is
the basis of this
precept.>>
The mistake in your thinking is that the Bible came about as a result of the
Church. The Church did not come about as a result of the Bible. The apostles
preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ BEFORE the Gospels were written. They
preached the Gospel before the epistles were written. And they preached the
Gospel before the Bible was compiled into the form it is today.
MMSiciliana wrote:
<< Ummmmmm, no. By saying the Bible is *the* "Word of God" you have just made
the Bible *your* god.>>
Bill wrote:
<<Hardly, but constant references to Mary as the mother of God has led many
people to wrongful worship;>>
"Wrongful worship" of whom? Mary? Saying that Mary is the Mother of God does
not mean that Mary is greater than God, or that she pre-dates God. It means
that since Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and since Jesus Christ is both
true God and true man and there is no division in Him, then God has chosen to
have a mother, and that mother is Mary. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
Bill wrote:
>> reference to the Bible as God's Word is very Christian in dead, as multiple
references in even Catholic writings, as well as the Holy Fathers will
attest.>>
Of course the Scriptures are known as the word of God; my point is that Jesus
Christ is THE Word of God. Jesus Christ is THE entire self-revelation of God
to us. The Scriptures are the written self-revelation of God to us.
Bill wrote:
<<By putting a person or a church body or institution above the Word of God, as
history has shown THAT is when you get out of alignment and THAT is the precept
of Sola Scriptura.>>
Not when the person you are putting above the written word of God is Jesus
Christ. And the Church is the mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth. When
Saul was persecuting the Christians, and he was blinded on the road of
Damascus, what did Jesus say? "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?" He
said, "me," not "my followers", not "Christians", not "members of the church I
founded."
As far as your contention that "you get out of alignment"--again, who is
qualified to make that judgment? When the Church determines that certain
groups are teaching heresy, that's one thing. When a person determines that
the Church has taught heresy, that's another. Who gives that person the right,
the duty, or the authority to determine that the Church is in error?
MMSiciliana wrote:
<<The "Word of God" is Jesus Christ. See John 1:1-2. Jesus Christ is the
entire self-revelation of God to us--not the Bible. The Bible is the written
self-revelation of God to us, but the Bible does not contain everything God
wanted to reveal to us--it can't--it's a limited book. See John 21: 25.
Everything God wanted to reveal to us was revealed to us in Jesus Christ. And
when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, he sent the eleven to go forth and
preach and teach the Gospel to the whole world. See 1 John 1: 4 They were
the first bishops in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is still
preaching the apostolic teaching today.>>
Bill wrote:
<<Yes, John wrote beautifully and labeled our Savior as the Word. This
spiritual form of writing does not remove the writings about Jesus from also
being labeled the Word. The point is that He is with us forever, and if it was
not for the capturing of the Good News, and the Epistles, and the History that
went before that pointed to Our Savior, we would have a really twisted faith
today. (as any simple review of the ever changing Book of Mormon, the constant
rewrites by the Jehovah Witnesses, the twisted logic and results of the Koran,
etc.)>>
Not so. By your contention, the early Church did not really have the Gospel.
And using the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims does not fit your
analogy, because all of those groups have their own written Scriptures. Their
faith beliefs are not based upon oral teachings. By the way, John didn't just
"write beautifully." The Scriptures are inerrant in as far as they contain the
truths that God wanted to reaveal to us for the sake of our salvation. One of
those truths is that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity--the Word of
God--eternally spoken by the Father--put on flesh and became a human being.
Bill wrote:
<<The Word of God, as preserved by those that went before us, when properly
studied is the best way to experience our Savior.>>
The point is that it is not only the written Scriptures that comprise the
entire Word of God. Jesus told his disciples to teach--not to write. Some did
write. But not everything was written. The ongoing, oral teaching of the
Church handed down from the apostles is called Sacred Tradition (with a capital
"t"). Paul tells Christians to remember and practice EVERYTHING he's taught
them--whether he taught them by word of mouth or by the written word. (2
Thessalonians 2: 15)
Bill wrote:
<<Let's not play semantics with John's poetic reference to Jesus as the Word to
take away from all the preserved writings about Jesus Christ as being properly
referred to as the Word of God. Consult Justin Martyr, Augustine, etc.
"Then I answered, "I know that, as the word of God says, this great wisdom of
God, the Maker of all things, and the Almighty, is hid from you. Wherefore, in
sympathy with you, I am striving to the utmost that you may understand these
matters which to you are paradoxical; but if not, that I myself may be innocent
in the day of judgment. " Justin Martyr
I understand that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church to go no farther
than to label them as "inspired books" ... but let's just leave our difference
there. It would be very difficult for the RCC to accept Sola Scriptura, since
it was one of the primary reasons for the Reformation.>>
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that "In Sacred Scripture, the Church
constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a
human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God." Int he sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with
them." CCC # 104
The Scriptures are not just "inspired books." What you fail to understand is
that "Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single
Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely" CCC # 102
Again, the Scriptures do indeed point to Jesus Christ--the eternal Word of the
Father. However, the Scriptures cannot contain the entire Jesus Christ,
because if they did, they would be God, and we both agree they are not.
Bill wrote:
<<Thank Goodness Paul appreciated Luther's plight 1500 years earlier! ;-)
Ephesians 6:14-17
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the
breastplate of righteousness in place,
15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of
peace.
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can
extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the WORD
of GOD.>>
Again, you are equating the Gospel and the Word of God with the Bible. The
Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ, and the Word of God is Jesus Christ.
We don't worship a book. We worship God alone.
Ted wrote:
<< As a Gen-X Catholic, the ONLY method I have is to compare what I find to
what
the Church teaches.>>
Bill wrote:
<<That is a good point of comparison. But then again comparing the Word of
God to what other Christian denominations hold as their foundations of faith,
would also be a good exercise.>>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<< Besides the Scriptures, what are the foundations of faith for other
Christian denominations?
Bill wrote:
<<Sola Scriptura comes to mind as one. We could really make this discussion
long by dissecting multiple denominations faith statements. Pentecostal,
Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. I'll save that discussion for another
thread.>>
So, in other words, besides the Scriptures, there are no other foundations of
faith for other Christian denominations, correct?
Ted wrote:
<< Increasingly I am doing that without the aid of a priest,>>
Bill wrote:
<<Have you ever found a priest to possibly teach in error? Do you fully
interpret everything that you study in the Word of God based on the beliefs of
the RCC? No judgment, just points of discussion.>>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<<Of course a *priest* could teach error. A priest is a human being. The
*Church,* however, cannot teach error. The Church is the Body of Christ. The
Church is lead by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Christ promised to remain
with His Church forever until the end of time. And Christ promised that the
Church He built upon Peter (Rock) would prevail against the gates of hell.>>
Bill wrote:
<<This belief is what continues to divide the East and West, and Catholics from
Protestants. Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption ... as innocent as
these beliefs are in themselves (although in many countries, they have taken on
much more than an innocent teaching), it is the fact that the Church says these
are the infallible truth, and that you must believe to be a good catholic. And
then in polls it has shown that there are so many unbelievers but the church
just turns its head and ignores.>>
Truth is truth. Read the 6th Chapter of John. Jesus spoke the truth and many
of his followers chose to walk away. They chose not to believe. Did Jesus
"just turn His head and ignore"? No, He was distressed that they chose not to
continue to follow Him, and the Church is distressed as well, because the
Church is the Body of Christ. Yet, just as Jesus never forced anyone to follow
Him, the Church cannot force people to accept the Way, the Truth and the Life,
either. Faith is a gift from God, and human beings must accept that gift.
Every person has free choice whether he or she will accept the gift of faith
that is freely given by God.
Bill wrote:
<<Christ has remained with His Church, through His Word and the study of the
History leading up to our Savior, His Testament and the teachings of the
Apostles after His Ascension.>>
Christ remains with His Church physically, as well, in the Sacrament of the
Eucharist.
Bill wrote:
<<Christ did NOT promise to stick with one church, headquartered in Rome. I
know this is the foundation of your belief, so I won't ask you to argue it but
that is also a major foundational defect that has divided the Church for over a
1000 years. I continue to feel positive to the "ideals" of the Catholic
Church, i.e. to be united as
one. But it is the method's seen through history that has kept that from
happening.>>
Jesus called Himself THE truth--not A truth. And Jesus said, "Upon this rock I
will build MY church," not "A church." And Jesus said to Saul, "Why are you
persecuting ME," not "why are you persecuting part of me."
Granted, throughout history, Christians of every type have contributed to the
divisions between us. We live in a world that is affected by original sin.
Not a single one of us is perfect. So it comes down to, who do you
follow--Christ, or other human beings? As Catholic Christians, we believe the
Church is the Body of Christ, therefore we must follow the Church.
Ted wrote:
<< but one needs to acknowledge the teaching power of Christ and the
Apostles,>>
Bill wrote:
<<Absolutely.>>
Ted wrote:
<<and the priest is the local representative of that teaching power (in fact,
it is his
ordained mission to emulate Christ as closely as possible. Because priests
are human too, his accomplishment of that mission varies according to personal
ability and sins, but that does not diminish the fact that they are the chosen
representative).>>
Bill wrote:
<<true, in the RCC, and the priests, pastors, deacons and elders of the other
Christian denominations are also the local representative of that teaching
power, i.e. as handed down by the Apostles.>>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<<But how is that "teaching power" "handed down" in other Christian
denominations? In the Catholic Church, it is handed down in an unbroken line
stretching from the apostles. It is handed down in the "laying on of hands" in
the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
These "reverend, wonderful ceremonies" are spoken of in the Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5: 22, 2 Timothy 1: 6
As far as "lineage" is concerned, the priests of the Old Testament were part of
a lineage. Why should it be any different in the New? Where does Jesus say
that "a proper study of God's Word (meaning the Scriptures) is what will make
you an excellent leader of His word"? After all, Jesus did not choose the
Pharisees--who were well-schooled in the Scriptures--as His followers. He
chose fishermen and a tax collector.
Ted wrote:
<< Obviously, I have the capability of becoming the AntiChrist if I choose, as
does any human being. And allowing personal scripture interpretation
encourages such
arrogance.>>
Bill wrote:
<<personal scripture interpretations are healthy and welcome in any growing
church. The point is, do those interpretations grow in a vacuum or in a church
body? The Word of God is not difficult to follow and understand, except where
the institutional church has historically wanted it to appear to be.>>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<< Hmmmm.....I disagree. And so do the Scriptures themselves.
2 Peter 1: 20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.
Bill wrote:
<<And here we have a good example of taking one verse out of context to justify
some requirement that you must not "interpret" i.e. study. What do you think
study is? Perhaps my wording should have been different. When one "study's" a
verse or section that they are unfamiliar with, one will wonder if it means
this or that ... that is "interpretation". Should this be checked? but of
course.>>
And, of course, you "snipped" the other verse without even commenting on it.
Rather intellectually dishonest of you, don't you think? Here it is again:
2 Peter 3: 15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written
unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are
some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Bill wrote:
<<I emphasize the teaching about the Holy Spirit. Should one be leery of a
"prophet" that was self taught? In most cases, yes. Was Jesus "self-taught"?
He worked within the structure of the institutional church as far as it would
go, but it was hardened against any fulfillment of the scriptures other than
through how they interpreted it. This is a similar problem we have today where
the RCC claims sole rights at Bible interpretation (although not as bad, but
still similar) with the fear of
loosing it's hold on its followers.>>
Oh, please...not this stereotype. No Catholic is forced to remain within the
Church. The Church is not like some gigantic spider in a web holding the poor
little flys captive. The Church does not brain wash--in fact, some of the most
brilliant people in the history of the world have been Catholic theologians.
Don't throw out these flares when you cannot argue with the evidence that's
been presented.
Bill wrote:
<<Any interpretation of the few parts of the bible that one might wonder about
(since the bulk of it is clear for even a child) should of course be checked
with the elders of your own church. >>
And again, one needs to ask why you think your elders have the proper
interpretation--versus the elders in the Protestant church down the street?
Bill wrote:
<< One needs to study, one needs to understand, one needs to ask questions. If
we sit and wait for others to interpret the Word of God for us, we will never
read it ... as has been the history of the Catholic Church (noted that it is
changing lately).>>
Another stereotype based upon the fact that when the Catholic Church was the
*only* church, illiteracy was the norm amongst the general population. By the
way, historically, the Douay Rheims English translation of the Bible predates
the AKJV. The Scriptures are and have been proclaimed at Mass throughout the
history of the Church. If one were to attend daily Mass for a period of three
years, he or she would hear virtually the entire Bible proclaimed--except for
some of the long genealogical passages. Again, argue the evidence
presented--not the stereotypes.
Bill quoted:
<<Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little
children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to
such as these.">>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<<Which actually says nothing about whether it is easy to understand the
Scriptures....it says that those who are members of Christ's Church must be
child like. And children trust their elders. Children believe what is told to
them by adults. The bishops and the Pope are the elders and the adults in the
Church.
Bill wrote:
<<It says quite a bit about the ease of understanding the Testament of Christ,
the story of the Holy Land, whatever you want to call it. >>
Only in your interpretation, Bill. ;-)
Bill wrote:
<< Would one have a hard time in Hebrews at the age of 6? Certainly, but we
are chasing gnats with that. The price that our Savior has paid for us, what
we are to do to live in His model, the commandments and the law that preceded
our Savior.... all this is NOT in need of a doctorate of theology to
comprehend, but simply a strong desire, a child like faith, to comprehend fully
our Savior .... i.e. it has everything to do with the Scriptures.>>
No, Bill, it has everything to do with God. The Scriptures are not God.
Bill wrote:
<<Let's not USE God's Word to elevate the institutional church as it's sole
interpreter.>>
MMSiciliana wrote:
<< But the Scriptures plainly tell us that they are not to be privately
interpreted. And Jesus plainly tells us that he gives the authority and the
duty to lead the Church on earth to Peter when he says, "You are Rock and on
this rock I will build my Church.>>
Bill wrote:
<<This is your belief and we will leave it as that. If that were mine, I would
be Catholic. This is a wonderful example of creative twisting of the
Scriptures to imply that Peter is the rock, and Jesus' Testament, i.e. the
Word, is not. The "rock" is used throughout the scriptures to indicate
foundation.>>
Indeed, the word "rock" is used throughout the scriptures to indicate
foundation, and indeed, Simon is renamed "rock", therefore, it is not an
"example of creative twisting", it's an acknowledgement of the truth. Please
don't claim the Peter/petra Greek "little rock"/"big rock" analogy. Jesus
spoke Aramaic and he renamed Peter Cephas (John 1: 42) which is just plain
"Rock." Therefore, what he said in His own language was, "You are Rock and on
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."
Bill wrote:
<<Matthew 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them
into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."
Any faith based on Sola Scriptura can easily use this verse of Matthew to make
the same claim that we differ on. i.e. the RCC finds the reference to Rock
when speaking to Peter "convenient" to justify their "claim" of sovereignty
over what is not meant to be "of man". We can leave this one alone since I
know where I am and I don't hope to change anyone to my belief, but just to
give you an understanding of the differences.>>
But we don't have to leave this one alone, because even if someone were to use
the verse you've just quoted as justification for the belief in sola Scriptura,
it doesn't wash. Because if one listens to ALL of the words of Christ, one
realizes that Jesus has founded His Church on Peter--the first Pope. The
Scriptures come to us through the Church which is the pillar and foundation of
the truth--not the Scriptures. (1 Timothy 3: 15)
MMSiciliana wrote:
<<bishops--the power and the authority to bind and loose, but it is only
Peter--the first pope--who receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven.>>
Bill wrote:
<<Well, we know THAT isn't in the Word of God. ;-) >>
Hmmmm......well, it's in my Bible ;-)
.....and it's in my AKJV Bible, too:
Matthew 16: 18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
MMSiciliana wrote:
<<So, the choice is up to you. Are you going to continue to privately
interpret the Scriptures, or are you going to become as a little child and
allow yourself to be taught by those Christ has placed in positions of
authority over you?>>
Bill wrote:
<<Been there, done that. I have stated that the "model" that the RCC would
like to put forth is an attractive one. It just has failed for the masses over
the eon's. The architecture is attractive, but Jesus is not about
"architecture", He is about knowing Him. The RCC has a long way to go (in
this persons opinion) to get itself in a position of truly preaching and
teaching God's Word. Private Study of the Scriptures is encouraged. I did
not find that to be the case when I was a member of the RCC.>>
A close look at John 6 shows others who also thought they knew more than God
does about what is true and what is not.
MMSiciliana quoted:
<<Hebrews 13: 17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch
for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy,
and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.>>
Bill wrote:
<<In that I do, I obey my Savior, I put my full faith in Him. >>
According to the Scriptures--the written self-revelation of God, we are to
submit to those who God has put in places of leadership over us in the
Church--not just to Jesus Christ. Jesus chose to involve mere human beings in
spreading the Word of God. He could have appeared to every single person in
every single age and he could have personally invited them to believe in him.
Instead, He chose to spread the Gospel through others.
Bill wrote:
<< I see many Catholics that do also, but I see even more non-Catholic church
goers that are much more focused on God's Word and not man's traditions.>>
Looks like you'd rather throw out another flare than argue from your chosen
faith foundation--the Scriptures. What are you afraid of?
agthorn
"MMSICILIANA" <mmsic...@cs.cominvalid> wrote in message
> Ted wrote:
> << How do you tell the difference between your own subconscious leading
you to
> read only the verses that agree with your personal sins
First of all, for the easiest answer, the Bible should not be read on just a
"selected verse" basis. The Bible is not a magic 8 ball or fortune teller,
and if that is the way that someone approaches it, then they will fail
miserably in their attempt.
>(there are verses all
> over the Bible that do, a case in point is Ecclesiastes 5:1-3, which
appears to
> counsel young women to abort their children because of the evil of the
world),
> as opposed to the Holy Spirit leading your Bible Study?
We've already discussed these verses and your "what if" scenario is way too
far fetched to take seriously as an example of what could happen. Further,
you can say that about any book, if you do selective "dart throwing" verse
extraction or readings. This is hardly a testament for needing the RCC to
"guide you". Please give me a better argument.
> MMSiciliana wrote:
> << Ted was referring to Ecclesiastes 4: 1-3 which in the AKJV is
translated:
> 4: 1 So I returned and considered all the opressions that are done under
the
> sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no
comforter;
> and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no
comforter.
> 4: 2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the
living
> which are yet alive.
> 4: 3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath
not
> seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
>
> Ted is saying that a person contemplating an abortion could read this
scripture
> as a permission to obtain the abortion.
Yes, and a person contemplating suicide could open the bible randomly and
find a verse or two to push them over .... someone else might poke their eye
out literally when they lust, or cut their hands off for other sins, etc.
Let's bring this discussion back to the world of study and not the "what
it's" wild examples ...
>Then Ted asks, how do you tell the
> difference between your own subconscious leading your interpretation of
> Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit guiding your study of Scripture?
> How can you be sure that your interpretation is the correct
interpretation?
1 - Have a serious desire to want to learn, not find an answer you are in
need of.
2 - By not taking verses out of context. In many cases (Ecclesiastes being
an excellent example), one shouldn't even read a single chapter out of
context of the whole book.
3 - Study includes knowing the timeframe, the era, the environment that many
things were written in as well. Any serious scripture study would also
entail further side discussions of the places, times, individuals and more
that are being discussed.
Seriously, if the best reason you can give for "Papal interpretation" of the
scriptures is this far off set of verses from Ecclesiastes (a book written
by Solomon intentionally from a negative reflective basis) is your best
argument, then I suggest that you re-position your case.
> Bill wrote:
> <<If someone picks up the bible to justify a wrongful act, and open's
>randomly, I would hazard a guess that many verses (taken out of
>context) could lead many astray. But that is no different than any
>"read" versus "study" comparison. If one seriously seeks God in
>the scriptures, the scriptures are NOT Rocket Science.>>
> But you still haven't answered the question. How can you be sure that
>your interpretation is the correct interpretation?
You haven't yet given me a reason to answer the question. The Bible, when
you look at it's "center" (from a Christian view) being the Gospels, is a
Testament of our Savior, preceded by history and followed by apostolic
guidance. it is NOT difficult to understand. Where you have questions,
you work with the elders of your faith to know that your interpretation is
correct. Where one is truly honest to the scriptures, one would also check
these interpretations of these elders.
One should also know the scriptures, and know the profession of faith of
your church to comprehend if this elders guidance is "Christian" in focus or
denominational in focus and I include the RCC in that latter definition as
well.
This last step is not an unimportant one. It makes all the difference, for
example, when having conversations with Jehovah Witnesses that truly want to
know their Savior and not what their special modified bible tell them; for
Mormons who really want to pick up the Bible that their Book is just a
companion to; to Muslims who know the Quran refers to the Bible positively
but have never bothered to read either; for Adventists who may have read the
"Great Controversy" multiple times and the Bible only lightly; and also for
Catholics & Orthodox (even Lutherans & Anglicans) who rely on their
Catechism and someone else to actually study the scriptures for them.
> MMSiciliana wrote:
> My point is that human beings did not follow EVEN Jesus Christ. Yet you
> believe they are to follow the written word of God. Once again, you are
> proving that to you, the Bible is more divine than Christ Himself. You
> have made the Bible into your god.
The Bible is the recorded, unalterable Word of God, our Savior, manifested
to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ. Sad that you choose to refer to people
that put that recorded word above the changing words of man as "bible
worshippers". I was hoping for a more stimulating conversation than just
"making labels".
Please go back and re-read anything that I have written that would make one
think that I refer to the Bible as a god. I know of no statues of it, no
one bowing before it, no one lighting candles before it, etc. And for
someone from a church that does such things to other likenesses than our
Savior .. well, let's just say that I find it rather poorly based for such a
silly label to be given in this discussion. Make your case first, and then
make your accusation. That is the usual order.
> Bill wrote:
> <<History within the Catholic Church, and without. And this very problem,
> i.e.. with man, gives us the foundational need behind the concept of Sola
> Scriptura. To apply this "concept" to a book that is NOT of God is your
> mistake in your analogy. Applying this to the Word of God, ABOVE, the
> dictates of man ... hence simply stating that the church is also subject
to the
> Word is the basis of this precept.>>
> The mistake in your thinking is that the Bible came about as a result of
the
> Church. The Church did not come about as a result of the Bible. The
apostles
> preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ BEFORE the Gospels were written. They
> preached the Gospel before the epistles were written. And they preached
the
> Gospel before the Bible was compiled into the form it is today.
Have I said that the Church came about as a result of the Bible?
No, so please don't attribute words to me that have not been spoken.
I know that you seem to be trying to back this discussion into some sort of
Catholic apologetics but don't make such large jumps in assumptions and
perhaps then we can keep the dialogue going.
The mistake in YOUR thinking is to think that the Church is the author of
the Bible. The creation of both were orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, often
in confrontation with mankind.
As far as the Apostles, you are quite correct .. they preached the Gospel
before the BIBLE was written, but the Gospels were written pretty quickly
after our Savior ascended. Why Catholic apologetics need to assume that
these Gospels were not being written down and distributed before the Bible
was canonized is interesting to me. Please expound on why you find this
important.
> MMSiciliana wrote:
> << Ummmmmm, no. By saying the Bible is *the* "Word of God" you have just
made the Bible *your* god.>>
> Bill wrote:
<<Hardly, but constant references to Mary as the mother of God has led many
> people to wrongful worship;>>
>
> "Wrongful worship" of whom? Mary? Saying that Mary is the Mother of God
> does not mean that Mary is greater than God, or that she pre-dates God.
Officially, your statement is correct. I have no problem with the position
of the church in this regard, but it's Marian focus has taken this innocent
intent label for Mary and built on it and built on it over the centuries
that, in reality, it has caused a great deal of wrongful worship and
continues to do so to this day.
> It means that since Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and since Jesus
Christ is
> both true God and true man and there is no division in Him, then God has
> chosen to have a mother, and that mother is Mary. Therefore, Mary is the
> Mother of God.
Therefore, there is no division in Mary either .... hence, she is elevated,
and hence the error in this label.
> Bill wrote:
> reference to the Bible as God's Word is very Christian in dead, as
> multiple references in even Catholic writings, as well as the Holy
> Fathers will attest.>>
> Of course the Scriptures are known as the word of God; my point is
> that Jesus Christ is THE Word of God. Jesus Christ is THE entire
> self-revelation of God to us. The Scriptures are the written
> self-revelation of God to us.
You are splitting hairs with that difference statement. Written
self-revelation of God, but yet in an earlier argument you were pressing
that the Church came before the Bible.
Let's get back to the original discussion on Sola Scriptura and it's focus
of keeping even the church focused and true to God's Word and not giving the
church the circular ability to re-interpret God's Word on the basis of it
being created first. This is the foundational arguments that split the
church, and keep the RCC from wanting to adopt anything close to agreeing to
the tenants of Sola Scriptura.
> Bill wrote:
<<By putting a person or a church body or institution above the Word of
>God, as history has shown THAT is when you get out of alignment and
>THAT is the precept of Sola Scriptura.>>
> Not when the person you are putting above the written word of God is Jesus
> Christ. And the Church is the mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth.
But you just put your "belief" above God's Word. You need to believe that
the Roman church is the sole interpreter of God's Word to believe what you
just stated. A perfect circular argument. Can't check the scriptures on
that one ! how convenient! ;-)
Don't want to get into a big theological debate here. I respect your belief
here, but it is one that separates us.
> When Saul was persecuting the Christians, and he was blinded on the road
of
> Damascus, what did Jesus say? "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?"
> He said, "me," not "my followers", not "Christians", not "members of the
> church I founded."
True. and Saul became Paul and is our greatest recorded Christian prophet,
standing down the tradition of his church (Jewish at the time ..). Saul's
dedication prior to his road to Damascus experience has always interested
me. Even though he was the greatest persecutor of the early Church, Saul
still thought he was doing God's work.
Similarly, if one reads the life of Martin Luther you can make parallel's to
Saul in that Martin also tried desperately to stay within the church he
loved and to do it's bidding. But God also used him to move His church
forward, away from the path that humankind had directed it.
The Lord works in mysterious ways .... Praise Him.
> As far as your contention that "you get out of alignment"--again, who is
> qualified to make that judgment? When the Church determines that certain
> groups are teaching heresy, that's one thing. When a person determines
> that the Church has taught heresy, that's another. Who gives that person
> the right, the duty, or the authority to determine that the Church is in
error?
Excellent center for a complete one-on-one series of theological debates,
just too deep for this newsgroup I am afraid. In short, the church is
subject to God's Word and the Holy Spirit can handle man and his church just
fine. Thank God that He is among us.
> Bill wrote:
> <<Yes, John wrote beautifully and labeled our Savior as the Word. This
> spiritual form of writing does not remove the writings about Jesus from
> also being labeled the Word. The point is that He is with us forever, and
> if it was not for the capturing of the Good News, and the Epistles, and
> the History that went before that pointed to Our Savior, we would have
> a really twisted faith today.
> (as any simple review of the ever changing Book of Mormon, the
> constant rewrites by the Jehovah Witnesses, the twisted logic and
> results of the Koran, etc.)>>
> Not so. By your contention, the early Church did not really have the
>Gospel.
Not at all. the early church definitely had the Gospels, as early as 50 AD,
the Gospels have been recorded and hand copied.
> And using the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims does not fit
> your analogy, because all of those groups have their own written
Scriptures.
All, but they all point to the Good Book, the Word of God, the Bible. They
don't really use it (Islam) or hardly use it (Mormon) or misuse it
(Jehovah's Witnesses) but they all refer to it in a positive light. Sort of
doing it one worse than having it and just not opening it as many of us
Christians tend to do! ;-)
> Their faith beliefs are not based upon oral teachings.
True, but with positive references to the Bible. References that open the
door to the truth to these groups if they would ever really want to know our
Savior.
>By the way, John didn't just "write beautifully."
Of course he didn't. He wrote quite spiritually. The Gospel of John is my
favorite as it is the best witnessing Gospel we have. It is the "unique"
Bible ....
> Bill wrote:
> <<The Word of God, as preserved by those that went before us, when
>properly studied is the best way to experience our Savior.>>
> The point is that it is not only the written Scriptures that comprise the
> entire Word of God. Jesus told his disciples to teach--not to write.
Very true. I would think that there are many early writings of the church
"Fathers" that would be great recommended reading. I am an avid reader of
history and I would strongly recommend this to anyone. Great theology lead
to the canonization of the New Testament. Bad Theology lead to our
differences in the Old Testament. But no matter, we have one solid
Christian Book, the New Testament, and minor differences in our History Book
(Old Testament). The Bible is still the record of our Church and the
foundation of what makes one a Christian.
Salvation is what is important ....
the rest gets into more of a discussion of club membership and who holds the
mortgage, etc.
Sola Scriptura simply puts the claim that "God's in charge" above mankind's
claim of lineage and being the voice of God.
> Some did
> write. But not everything was written. The ongoing, oral teaching of the
> Church handed down from the apostles is called Sacred Tradition (with a
capital
> "t"). Paul tells Christians to remember and practice EVERYTHING he's
taught
> them--whether he taught them by word of mouth or by the written word. (2
> Thessalonians 2: 15)
Wonderful instructions from Paul. Problem is that the latter church turned
"Tradition" (using your proper nouning) into a parallel with "Scripture".
There is tremendous danger in this, but that again is a difference between
RCC and other Christians that we will not resolve in this newsgroup.
Sola Scriptura does NOT speak out against things that are not in the
Scriptures (i.e. church tradition)... it speaks clearly that all things need
to be first tested by the Scriptures.
Let's take the example of the Catholic beliefs on Mary ... those that want
to believe in these things, as long as they are not clearly taught otherwise
in the scriptures, are NOT in conflict with Sola Scriptura (otherwise Luther
himself would have a problem as history shows). On the contrary, in this
non-Catholic's view, it is the Roman Church's requirement of making them a
requirement to be a member of the "Church" that is against the Word of God,
and not the teaching itself .... THAT would be un-founded in scriptures
and hence is more of a division in our faith than the RCC Mariology itself.
> Bill wrote:
> <<Let's not play semantics with John's poetic reference to Jesus as the
>Word to take away from all the preserved writings about Jesus Christ
>as being properly referred to as the Word of God.
>Consult Justin Martyr, Augustine, etc.
> I understand that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church to go no
>farther than to label them as "inspired books" ... but let's just leave our
>difference there. It would be very difficult for the RCC to accept
>Sola Scriptura, since it was one of the primary reasons for the
>Reformation.>>
> The teaching of the Catholic Church is that "In Sacred Scripture, the
>Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she
>welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word
>of God."
What? YOU are admitting that the Catholic Church refers to the Bible (oops,
sorry, I mean the Sacred Scripture) as the word of God (noted difference for
you to use a lower case "word" and me to use "Word."). But, in just a msg
or two ago you were saying that this equates to "Bible worship", i.e. making
the Bible 'one's god'. Does the reference to "Sacred Scriptures" instead
of "Bible" and using a lower case "we" really make that big of a difference
for you to then make the same claim as I did?
If so, you have too much "religion" my friend and not enough "relationship"
with our Savior.
>Int he sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his
>children, and talks with them." CCC # 104
> The Scriptures are not just "inspired books." What you fail to understand
> is that "Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one
> single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely"
>CCC # 102
> Again, the Scriptures do indeed point to Jesus Christ--the eternal Word of
>the Father. However, the Scriptures cannot contain the entire Jesus
Christ,
> because if they did, they would be God, and we both agree they are not.
Seems like you are really caught up in minutia here. So now we are
discussing how many actual words were really spoken literally by God so the
reference to the Bible as the Word of God might be in question? Come on my
friend, let's get out of the legalize and minutia of counting angels on the
head of a pin and get back to the foundational truth in the argument that
God's Word, God's Word is manifested in the Holy Scriptures. If you don't
like to refer to it as "the Bible" so you have a mysterical broader world to
play in, that is your teaching. All I ask is for you to see the why of that
teaching and understand that God's Word is the Bible. Is there more
discussed about God outside of the Bible? sure. Is there merit to read
these discussions, absolutely. But the recorded Word of God is contained
within the Bible. THAT is what we are discussing and THAT is the "rule of
law" for the church to stay within, and THAT is known as Sola Scriptura.
The church has a history of errors where it stepped away or around the
Scriptures.
> Bill wrote:
> <<Thank Goodness Paul appreciated Luther's plight 1500 years earlier! ;-)
>
> Ephesians 6:14-17
> 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with
>the breastplate of righteousness in place,
> 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel
>of peace.
> 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you
can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
> 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the
WORD of GOD.>>
> Again, you are equating the Gospel and the Word of God with the Bible.
Absolutely and I will continue to do so until someone shows me a "Word" from
God that is NOT in the Bible. please point me.
>The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ, and the Word of God
>is Jesus Christ. We don't worship a book. We worship God alone.
I wish that were true. Low emphasis on the scriptures importance over the
church's teaching has lead to many divisions within our faith, and we don't
need to detail them here. If the RCC had taught worship of God alone
through the ages, let's just say, Christianity would not be so fragmented
today.
You apparently have a need to keep making this claim that putting the Word
of God (aka the Bible) above the Church is akin to bible worship. But yet
you give no basis for this blatant accusation. There are many semantically
games played around what the RCC does with worship of persons, places,
icons, and more OTHER than God, but for anyone to call SS bible worship is
just silly. Especially when you just say it and give no basis. Please
equate my "bible worship" with your churches worship via statues, prayer
cards, candles, etc. And tell me again, what is biblical and what is not.
> MMSiciliana wrote:
> << Besides the Scriptures, what are the foundations of faith for other
> Christian denominations?
> Bill wrote:
> <<Sola Scriptura comes to mind as one. We could really make this
>discussion long by dissecting multiple denominations faith statements.
>Pentecostal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. I'll save that
>discussion for another thread.>>
> So, in other words, besides the Scriptures, there are no other foundations
>of faith for other Christian denominations, correct?
Wrong. I simply stated this is the big one, the one of this thread and any
further discussion of others would be best in another thread.
<continued>
Tom A.
> > But you still haven't answered the question. How can you be sure that
> >your interpretation is the correct interpretation?
>
> You haven't yet given me a reason to answer the question. The Bible, when
> you look at it's "center" (from a Christian view) being the Gospels, is a
> Testament of our Savior, preceded by history and followed by apostolic
> guidance. it is NOT difficult to understand. Where you have questions,
> you work with the elders of your faith to know that your interpretation is
> correct. Where one is truly honest to the scriptures, one would also check
> these interpretations of these elders.
Not difficult to understand? What is the color of the sky on your
planet?
Take Baptism, for example. Some think it is just a symbol, some think
it is the entrance to the Christian life, or the initiation to the
church. Some think it is only for those who have already been saved,
others that it is part of salvation. Some think only for adults, others
baptize infants.
Then there's the Eucharist. Gobs of differences there.
Salvation - once saved always saved, vs. backsliding, vs snow covered
dung, vs. saving grace.
Drinking wine or not?
Saturday or Sunday worship?
Tongues? How solemn? How enthusiastic? how prayerful? how liturgical?
how quiet? how loud?
Priests? ministers? elders? deacons? bishops? women ministers or
priests?
33000+ different Christian denominations. 33000 different
interpretations of God's revelation.
I'm not prideful enough to say that all those people are wrong. I know
there are lots and lots of sincere, dedicated, knowledgeable, humble,
scholarly people who try to answer these questions.
But there are still 33000+ different interpretations.
If the differences aren't important, why can't they be overcome? If the
differences are only over inconsequential, who decides what's important,
and what isn't?
Luther and Zwingli debated for half a day over the Real Presence, and
couldn't come to an agreement. Is the Real Presence of Jesus an
unimportant item? If you say it isn't important, what am I to think,
who regard it as central to the whole Christian life?
And the majority of these differences are less than 500 years old - most
much less. The whole "rapture" thing is only about 160 years old - yet
these people are sure that they find it in the Bible.
I find it funny that the things most divisive these days - the Real
Presence, the Magesterium, the moral teaching of the Church - all this
stuff was not a problem for the early Christians. The real arguments of
the early Church - the nature (or dual nature, really :-) of Christ, the
Trinity, the Personhood of the Holy Spirit - these were the things that
the early Church thought about, prayed about, studied, and fought for.
The other things - many of the things dividing churches today - were
accepted. Very strange.
> Very true. I would think that there are many early writings of the church
> "Fathers" that would be great recommended reading. I am an avid reader of
> history and I would strongly recommend this to anyone. Great theology lead
> to the canonization of the New Testament. Bad Theology lead to our
> differences in the Old Testament. But no matter, we have one solid
> Christian Book, the New Testament, and minor differences in our History Book
> (Old Testament). The Bible is still the record of our Church and the
> foundation of what makes one a Christian.
Just browsing and I saw this ^
Have to disagree with you assessment of the Old Testament. It is the
record of God's revelation of Himself to Men, and inspired - as inspired
as the NT. It points to Jesus, and teaches morality and good living; as
well as presenting God. So, it may just be a matter of emphasis, or a
simplification in the mists of a long argument, but I think you downplay
the OT too much.
> Wonderful instructions from Paul. Problem is that the latter church turned
> "Tradition" (using your proper nouning) into a parallel with "Scripture".
> There is tremendous danger in this, but that again is a difference between
> RCC and other Christians that we will not resolve in this newsgroup.
It is that "Tradition" - the Apostolic Faith handed down, that was used
as the basis for selecting which books were included in the Bible. As
such, the Bible is part of Tradition, and cannot contradict it.
--
Tom A.
"No doubt many that post deserve to be flamed. And many that are flamed
didn't deserve it. Can you give them the latter? Then don't be so
quick to deal out the former!" - not Gandalf.
Deja mail is gone. Look for me at raugost at yahoo . com
MMSICILIANA
<< How do you tell the difference between your own subconscious leading you to
read only the verses that agree with your personal sins>>
Bill:
<<First of all, for the easiest answer, the Bible should not be read on just a
"selected verse" basis. The Bible is not a magic 8 ball or fortune teller, and
if that is the way that someone approaches it, then they will fail miserably in
their attempt.>>
Glad to hear that you do not approach the Scriptures that way...but let's face
it, there are Christians who do..our own anti-Catholic Baptist Carlos being a
prime example.
Ted:
<<(there are verses all over the Bible that do, a case in point is Ecclesiastes
5:1-3, which appears to counsel young women to abort their children because of
the evil of the world), as opposed to the Holy Spirit leading your Bible
Study?>>
Bill:
<<We've already discussed these verses and your "what if" scenario is way too
far fetched to take seriously as an example of what could happen. >>
No, some women believe they are doing their unborn children a "favor" by
aborting them. Some women believe they are acting out of "love."
Bill:
<< Further, you can say that about any book, if you do selective "dart
throwing" verse extraction or readings. This is hardly a testament for needing
the RCC to
"guide you". Please give me a better argument.>>
Ted didn't claim to need the Catholic Church to guide his Scripture study. He
asked how do you know whether you are reading your own *subconscious* thoughts
into the meaning of the Scripture versus being led by the Holy Spirit? I was
also unaware that we were "arguing." I thought we were having a discussion
about our beliefs and why we believe them. Having a discussion does not entail
throwing out flares such as "This is hardly a testament for needing the RCC to
'guide you' " when nothing like that has even been suggested in any of the
preceding statements.
MM:
<< Ted was referring to Ecclesiastes 4: 1-3 which in the AKJV is translated:
4: 1 So I returned and considered all the opressions that are done under the
sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter;
and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
4: 2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living
which are yet alive.
4: 3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not
seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
Ted is saying that a person contemplating an abortion could read this scripture
as a permission to obtain the abortion.>>
Bill:
<<Yes, and a person contemplating suicide could open the bible randomly and
find a verse or two to push them over .... someone else might poke their eye
out literally when they lust, or cut their hands off for other sins, etc.
Let's bring this discussion back to the world of study and not the "what it's"
wild examples ...>>
All I'm saying is that this is the way Ted opened up the discussion. He then
asked how do you tell the difference between your own subconscious leading your
interpretation of Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit guiding your study of
Scripture? See the next sentence.
MM:
<<Then Ted asks, how do you tell the difference between your own subconscious
leading your interpretation of Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit guiding
your study of Scripture? How can you be sure that your interpretation is the
correct
interpretation?>>
Bill:
<<1 - Have a serious desire to want to learn, not find an answer you are in
need of.>>
So do you never refer to the Scriptures when you are attempting to discern the
proper response to some challenge or difficulty in your life?
Bill:
<<2 - By not taking verses out of context. In many cases (Ecclesiastes being
an excellent example), one shouldn't even read a single chapter out of context
of the whole book.
3 - Study includes knowing the timeframe, the era, the environment that many
things were written in as well. Any serious scripture study would also entail
further side discussions of the places, times, individuals and more that are
being discussed.>>
But none of these answers tell us how you can be *sure* that *your*
interpretation is the correct one.
Bill:
<<Seriously, if the best reason you can give for "Papal interpretation" of the
scriptures is this far off set of verses from Ecclesiastes (a book written by
Solomon intentionally from a negative reflective basis) is your best argument,
then I suggest that you re-position your case.>>
Ummmm.....please show me where I have ever said that I believe in "Papal
interpretation" before you tell me to "re-position my case." It's rather
difficult to re-position my case from something I've never claimed. And we're
still waiting for the answer to the question, "How do you know your
interpretation is the correct one?"
Bill:
<<If someone picks up the bible to justify a wrongful act, and open's randomly,
I would hazard a guess that many verses (taken out of context) could lead many
astray. But that is no different than any "read" versus "study" comparison.
If one seriously seeks God in the scriptures, the scriptures are NOT Rocket
Science.>>
MM:
<< But you still haven't answered the question. How can you be sure that your
interpretation is the correct interpretation?>>
Bill:
<<You haven't yet given me a reason to answer the question. >>
Bill, let's face it, your interpretation of some of the verses in the Bible is
different than my interpretation. And our interpretations of some of the
verses in the Bible are probably very different from Carlos' interpretations.
Jesus is the way, THE TRUTH and the Life. If you and I believe from reading
the Scriptures that Baptism is necessary for entrance into heaven, yet Carlos
does not, somebody doesn't have the truth. That's the reason I want to know
how do you know your interpretation is the correct one versus my
interpretation, or Carlos' interpretation?
Bill:
<<The Bible, when you look at it's "center" (from a Christian view) being the
Gospels, is a Testament of our Savior, preceded by history and followed by
apostolic guidance. it is NOT difficult to understand. Where you have
questions,
you work with the elders of your faith to know that your interpretation is
correct. Where one is truly honest to the scriptures, one would also check
these interpretations of these elders.>>
OK. Now we're getting somewhere. So you know your interpretation is correct
if it corresponds to the interpretation of your church leaders? Why are your
church learders correct, and mine or Carlos' incorrect? All of us have studied
the Scriptures and all of us can see the merit in what we've been taught by
leaders in the church. Or is it your claim that Carlos and I are dishonest?
Bill:
<<One should also know the scriptures, and know the profession of faith of
myour church to comprehend if this elders guidance is "Christian" in focus or
denominational in focus and I include the RCC in that latter definition as
well.
This last step is not an unimportant one. It makes all the difference, for
example, when having conversations with Jehovah Witnesses that truly want to
know their Savior and not what their special modified bible tell them; for
Mormons who really want to pick up the Bible that their Book is just a
companion to; to Muslims who know the Quran refers to the Bible positively but
have never bothered to read either; for Adventists who may have read the "Great
Controversy" multiple times and the Bible only lightly; and also for Catholics
& Orthodox (even Lutherans & Anglicans) who rely on their Catechism and someone
else to actually study the scriptures for them.>>
But didn't you just say you are to judge your interpretation by your leaders'
teaching? Why shouldn't the Catholic and Orthodox be allowed to draw from the
entire 2,000 year history of their Church? Why should we be bound only to
listen to the latest in a long line of teachers and preachers?
MM:
<< My point is that human beings did not follow EVEN Jesus Christ. Yet you
believe they are to follow the written word of God. Once again, you are
proving that to you, the Bible is more divine than Christ Himself. You have
made the Bible into your god.>>
Bill:
<<The Bible is the recorded, unalterable Word of God, our Savior, manifested to
us in the flesh as Jesus Christ.>>
Did you read what you wrote? You have proven that you have made the Bible into
your god. "The Bible is the recorded, unalterable Word of God, our Savior,
manifested to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ." You have just said that the
Bible is our Savior. The Word of God, according to the Scriptures, is Jesus
Christ. (John 1:1-2). You have just claimed that the Bible and Jesus Christ
are one and the same.
Bill:
<<Sad that you choose to refer to people that put that recorded word above the
changing words of man as "bible worshippers". I was hoping for a more
stimulating conversation than just "making labels".>>
I've shown why I made that claim in the paragraph above. Did you write what
you actually meant, or have I misunderstood your meaning?
Bill:
<<Please go back and re-read anything that I have written that would make one
think that I refer to the Bible as a god.>>
Refer to the above. Unless you can show me how I have been misled, you made it
as clear as day that you apparently believe the Bible and Jesus are one and the
same.
Bill:
<< I know of no statues of it, no one bowing before it, no one lighting candles
before it, etc. And for someone from a church that does such things to other
likenesses than our Savior .. well, let's just say that I find it rather poorly
based for such a silly label to be given in this discussion. Make your case
first, and then make your accusation. That is the usual order.>>
I've never claimed that a statue was god, I've never claimed that I
"worshipped" a statue, yet you have stated that the Bible and Jesus are one and
the same. "Bowing" before something or someone does not necessarily mean
"worship", either. People bow to other people as a sign of respect, and
performers "bow" after a performance. Do you claim they are worshiping the
audience? Why not? But once again, we are discussing your sole reliance upon
Scripture as the basis of your faith, and the fact that you yourself have
equated Scripture with Jesus Himself.
Bill:
<<History within the Catholic Church, and without. And this very problem,
i.e.. with man, gives us the foundational need behind the concept of Sola
Scriptura. To apply this "concept" to a book that is NOT of God is your
mistake in your analogy. Applying this to the Word of God, ABOVE, the dictates
of man ... hence simply stating that the church is also subject to the Word is
the basis of this precept.>>
MM:
<< The mistake in your thinking is that the Bible came about as a result of the
Church. The Church did not come about as a result of the Bible. The apostles
preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ BEFORE the Gospels were written. They
preached the Gospel before the epistles were written. And they preached the
Gospel before the Bible was compiled into the form it is today.>>
Bill:
<<Have I said that the Church came about as a result of the Bible? No, so
please don't attribute words to me that have not been spoken.>>
You said that the Church "is subject to" the Scriptures. How can the Church be
subject to something that came about as a result of the Church?
Bill:
<<I know that you seem to be trying to back this discussion into some sort of
Catholic apologetics but don't make such large jumps in assumptions and perhaps
then we can keep the dialogue going.>>
I just posted my reason for asking the question above. I see you making
assumptions that I'm "trying to back this discussion into some sort of Catholic
apologetics." Again, I've done nothing of the sort. I'm asking sincere
questions, but you *seem* threatened by them. Perhaps you're not, perhaps I'm
wrong, but that's the perception I'm getting.
Bill:
<<The mistake in YOUR thinking is to think that the Church is the author of the
Bible. The creation of both were orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, often in
confrontation with mankind.>>
Please post the statement I made that says that I believe the Church is the
author of the Bible. I didn't say that. I said the Bible came about as a
result of the Church--in other words, God worked through the Church to give the
world the Scriptures.
Bill:
<<As far as the Apostles, you are quite correct .. they preached the Gospel
before the BIBLE was written, but the Gospels were written pretty quickly after
our Savior ascended. Why Catholic apologetics need to assume that these
Gospels were not being written down and distributed before the Bible was
canonized is interesting to me. Please expound on why you find this
important.>>
Catholic apologetics don't "need to assume that these Gospels were not being
written down and distributed before the Bible was canonized." We know that was
the case. We also know there were other writings being distributed and being
debated as possibly being Scripture. It was up to the Church--with the
guidance of the Holy Spirit (whom Jesus promised to give to His Church) to
make the definitive statement that these particular writings are Sacred
Scripture and these other writings are not.
MM:
<< Ummmmmm, no. By saying the Bible is *the* "Word of God" you have just made
the Bible *your* god.>>
Bill:
<<Hardly, but constant references to Mary as the mother of God has led many
people to wrongful worship;>>
MM:
<< "Wrongful worship" of whom? Mary? Saying that Mary is the Mother of God
does not mean that Mary is greater than God, or that she pre-dates God.>>
Bill:
<<Officially, your statement is correct. I have no problem with the position
of the church in this regard, but it's Marian focus has taken this innocent
intent label for Mary and built on it and built on it over the centuries that,
in reality, it has caused a great deal of wrongful worship and continues to do
so to this day.>>
So, if someone misunderstands the official teaching of a church, it is the
fault of the church? I guess that when Jesus followers misunderstood him and
refused to follow him, it was Jesus' fault? (John 6: 66)
MM:
<< It means that since Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and since Jesus
Christ is both true God and true man and there is no division in Him, then God
has chosen to have a mother, and that mother is Mary. Therefore, Mary is the
Mother of God.>>
Bill:
<<Therefore, there is no division in Mary either .... hence, she is elevated,
and hence the error in this label.>>
There "is no division in Mary"? We have never claimed that Mary is "both true
God and true man." What are you talking about? I don't understand your
thinking here.
Bill:
<<reference to the Bible as God's Word is very Christian in dead, as multiple
references in even Catholic writings, as well as the Holy Fathers will
attest.>>
MM:
<< Of course the Scriptures are known as the word of God; my point is that
Jesus Christ is THE Word of God. Jesus Christ is THE entire self-revelation of
God to us. The Scriptures are the written self-revelation of God to us.>>
Bill:
<<You are splitting hairs with that difference statement.>>
No. I am not splitting hairs. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the
eternal Word of the Father, spoken through all eternity, put on flesh and
became a human being to save us. Jesus Christ is BOTH true God AND true man.
The Scriptures are the word of God in the sense that they are the written
self-revelation of God to us. But they are not the entire self-revelation of
God to us. They cannot be, because the pages of a book cannot contain the
infinite One. Only Jesus Christ can be the ENTIRE self-revelation of God to
us. Therefore, if you put the Scriptures on the same level as Jesus Christ,
you have made the Bible your god.
Bill:
<< Written self-revelation of God, but yet in an earlier argument you were
pressing
that the Church came before the Bible.>>
Both statements are true. The Church did come before the Bible, and the Bible
is the written self-revelation of God, but the Bible is not the entire
self-revelation of God. Jesus Christ is the complete, entire, self-revelation
of God, because Jesus Christ is God.
Bill:
<<Let's get back to the original discussion on Sola Scriptura and it's focus of
keeping even the church focused and true to God's Word and not giving the
church the circular ability to re-interpret God's Word on the basis of it being
created first. >>
OK. Please show me where the Scriptures make this claim.
Bill:
<< This is the foundational arguments that split the church, and keep the RCC
from wanting to adopt anything close to agreeing to the tenants of Sola
Scriptura.>>
The Catholic Church is kept free from teaching error by the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. Jesus promised to remain forever with his Church and he stated
that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. The Church cannot
adopt Sola Scriptura because it's not true.
Bill:
<<By putting a person or a church body or institution above the Word of God, as
history has shown THAT is when you get out of alignment and THAT is the precept
of Sola Scriptura.>>
MM:
<<Not when the person you are putting above the written word of God is Jesus
Christ. And the Church is the mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth.>>
Bill:
<<But you just put your "belief" above God's Word. You need to believe that
the Roman church is the sole interpreter of God's Word to believe what you just
stated. A perfect circular argument. Can't check the scriptures on that one !
how convenient! ;-)>>
What did Jesus say to Saul on the road to Damascus? Who was Saul persecuting?
The Church, right? What did Jesus say? "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting
ME?" That's right from the Scriptures. There goes your "circular argument.
;-)
I've continued the rest in another post.
William
wrote:
>agthorn wrote:
>
>> > But you still haven't answered the question. How can you be sure that
>> >your interpretation is the correct interpretation?
>>
>> You haven't yet given me a reason to answer the question. The Bible, when
>> you look at it's "center" (from a Christian view) being the Gospels, is a
>> Testament of our Savior, preceded by history and followed by apostolic
>> guidance. it is NOT difficult to understand. Where you have questions,
>> you work with the elders of your faith to know that your interpretation is
>> correct. Where one is truly honest to the scriptures, one would also check
>> these interpretations of these elders.
>
>Not difficult to understand? What is the color of the sky on your
>planet?
Ignoring the sarcasm of your initial response, the point is that
although many of these items divide denominations (as well as factions
within the Roman Church itself), the most important foundation remains
and that is to accept our Savior as the Son of God and that He died
for our sins.
>Take Baptism, for example. Some think it is just a symbol, some think
>it is the entrance to the Christian life, or the initiation to the
>church. Some think it is only for those who have already been saved,
>others that it is part of salvation. Some think only for adults, others
>baptize infants.
>Then there's the Eucharist. Gobs of differences there.
>Salvation - once saved always saved, vs. backsliding, vs snow covered
>dung, vs. saving grace.
>Drinking wine or not?
>Saturday or Sunday worship?
>Tongues? How solemn? How enthusiastic? how prayerful? how liturgical?
>how quiet? how loud?
>
>Priests? ministers? elders? deacons? bishops? women ministers or
>priests?
>
>33000+ different Christian denominations. 33000 different
>interpretations of God's revelation.
>I'm not prideful enough to say that all those people are wrong. I know
>there are lots and lots of sincere, dedicated, knowledgeable, humble,
>scholarly people who try to answer these questions.
>
>But there are still 33000+ different interpretations.
>
>If the differences aren't important, why can't they be overcome?
Do you really need an answer to that? We are dealing with "mankind"
remember?
>If the differences are only over inconsequential, who decides
>what's important, and what isn't?
In your faith, it's supposed to be your Pope - yet the differences
between European Catholics, American Catholics, Traditionalists,
Modernists, pre-Vatican II proponents, etc. is as wide as the church
that doesn't share a Pope.
>Luther and Zwingli debated for half a day over the Real Presence, and
>couldn't come to an agreement. Is the Real Presence of Jesus an
>unimportant item? If you say it isn't important, what am I to think,
>who regard it as central to the whole Christian life?
Define "un-important". St Augustine himself was against the current
over-emphasis that transubstantiation gives Holy Communion. In no
faith would I say it's "un-important", but in the RCC, it seems to
those of us outside, that this has turned into more of a wrongful
worship of an object rather than our Savior. But we are getting far
a-stream from the subject of Sola Scriptura.
>And the majority of these differences are less than 500 years old - most
>much less. The whole "rapture" thing is only about 160 years old - yet
>these people are sure that they find it in the Bible.
Has nothing to do with the discussion on Sola Scriptura.
>I find it funny that the things most divisive these days - the Real
>Presence, the Magesterium, the moral teaching of the Church - all this
>stuff was not a problem for the early Christians.
Oh Poppycock ... only if you "pretend" that the early church
subscribed to transubtantiation (it didn't) a (divided) church headed
in Rome (again, it did not) and the adoption as required teachings of
the faithful, Mariological myths and legends (again it did not). All
of this "stuff", these additives of Rome, if removed would do much to
bring us back to the early church and to reunite us. In actuality,
with little research anyone can see that it is the Orthodox and
Protestants that subscribe closer to the early church than the Roman
Church.
>The real arguments of
>the early Church - the nature (or dual nature, really :-) of Christ, the
>Trinity, the Personhood of the Holy Spirit - these were the things that
>the early Church thought about, prayed about, studied, and fought for.
>The other things - many of the things dividing churches today - were
>accepted. Very strange.
Read above .... your sadly mistaken.
>> Very true. I would think that there are many early writings of the church
>> "Fathers" that would be great recommended reading. I am an avid reader of
>> history and I would strongly recommend this to anyone. Great theology lead
>> to the canonization of the New Testament. Bad Theology lead to our
>> differences in the Old Testament. But no matter, we have one solid
>> Christian Book, the New Testament, and minor differences in our History Book
>> (Old Testament). The Bible is still the record of our Church and the
>> foundation of what makes one a Christian.
>
>Just browsing and I saw this ^
>Have to disagree with you assessment of the Old Testament. It is the
>record of God's revelation of Himself to Men, and inspired - as inspired
>as the NT. It points to Jesus, and teaches morality and good living; as
>well as presenting God. So, it may just be a matter of emphasis, or a
>simplification in the mists of a long argument, but I think you downplay
>the OT too much.
I don't downplay it at all. I am simply trying to downplay the
childish holding on to 7 books by Rome as not being worth keeping us
apart. The evidence is there why they were deemed apocrypha by our
Jewish ancestors, yet Rome wanted to have some effect on the OT as
well. This makes the RCC the one that downplays the OT over any other
faith. The Jewish Torah and Protestant OT support one another.
>> Wonderful instructions from Paul. Problem is that the latter church turned
>> "Tradition" (using your proper nouning) into a parallel with "Scripture".
>> There is tremendous danger in this, but that again is a difference between
>> RCC and other Christians that we will not resolve in this newsgroup.
>
>It is that "Tradition" - the Apostolic Faith handed down, that was used
>as the basis for selecting which books were included in the Bible. As
>such, the Bible is part of Tradition, and cannot contradict it.
You make "Tradition" as if it is something of substance. The words of
Paul (for example) were Tradition. Then they were written down. Then
they became scripture, with the guideance of the Holy Spirit. We no
longer need to speak of Tradition, with a capital or lower-case T when
it comes to the canonized Word. The whole purpose of making this into
the Bible retains God's teachings against the ever changing beliefs
that come from the tides of man. It is the Scriptures, granted many
were "tradition" until writen and canonized, that we abide by. This
is the rule of our faith. Is this the exclusive rule? of course not.
Does Sola Scriptura rule out having a Church that teachs, leads and
sets moral rules of faith or clarifies what the scriptures are foggy
on? absolutely not. Only when a church drifts away from the
scriptures, starts wrongfully focusing on beliefs or teachings that
take us away from our Savior, then Sola Scriptura applying to that
church as well tells us to get back to the Word of God and correct
those that have so mis-guided us.
In Jesus Name,
Bill
For "nice" occasional email use, you can delete the redundant pair of letters (ag) in the above email address.
postrib
> ...The whole "rapture" thing is only about 160 years old - yet
> these people are sure that they find it in the Bible...
Actually "rapture" is from the Latin "rapiemur," which is how the old
Latin translation of the Bible translated "caught up" in 1
Thessalonians 4:17.
Many Christians believe they will be caught up all the way into heaven
at Christ's return, and that this will be before the great
tribulation, but the Bible doesn't teach either of these things. It
says that Christians will be caught up into the clouds to meet Christ
as he descends at the 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), and that
this will happen "after the tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31).
Mike
"William" <wds-n...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:q11e6uoora55f143g...@4ax.com...
Yes you would have to answer that... The disorder it suggest, is not of God,
and the problem of sola scriptura was unheard of for 1500 years before the
reformation. Humm "mankind" indeed.
> >If the differences are only over inconsequential, who decides
> >what's important, and what isn't?
>
> In your faith, it's supposed to be your Pope - yet the differences
> between European Catholics, American Catholics, Traditionalists,
> Modernists, pre-Vatican II proponents, etc. is as wide as the church
> that doesn't share a Pope.
Doesn't this witness to the catholicity of the one Church of Christ? I'm not
sure of your defination of some of groups you sited but, are they not all in
union within the Cathloic Church? Much like the Eastern Churchs'; Byzantine,
Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and the Chaldean rites.
Who with thier own liturgical, theological, and tradtions are in union with
western Chruch. That would suggest that there is room for differnt points of
view, but on matters of Doctrine and the Churchs Magisterium, I assure you
they are united.
> >Luther and Zwingli debated for half a day over the Real Presence, and
> >couldn't come to an agreement. Is the Real Presence of Jesus an
> >unimportant item? If you say it isn't important, what am I to think,
> >who regard it as central to the whole Christian life?
>
> Define "un-important". St Augustine himself was against the current
> over-emphasis that transubstantiation gives Holy Communion. In no
> faith would I say it's "un-important", but in the RCC, it seems to
> those of us outside, that this has turned into more of a wrongful
> worship of an object rather than our Savior. But we are getting far
> a-stream from the subject of Sola Scriptura.
I would like to see what you think Augustine had to say for myself, could
you give a reference for your statement? Until the reformation, all
Christianity accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The
Church Fathers understood that it is not common bread nor common drink that
we receive; but the Body and Blood of Christ. They addressed the issue in
their letters to; the Smyrnaeans, by St Ignatius of Antioch110A.D.; First
Apology, by St. Justin Martyr around 150 A.D.; Against Heresies, by St
Ireneaeus around 195 A.D. , and in St. Cyril of Jerusalem catechetical
lecture given about 350 A.D.
Tom A. talked about Luther, so will I. Luther affirmed and defended the
doctrine of the Real Presence against those who would say less of the
Eucharist: "Who, but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting
words of the Holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body
is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies?
What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that
imposeth upon us by these fanatical men... Not one of the Fathers, though so
numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It
is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there
present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak,
and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not
so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body
of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men
should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many
writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they
thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are
all of them unanimous. (LUTHERS's COLLECTED WORKS, Wittenburg Edition, no.
7, p 391)
> >And the majority of these differences are less than 500 years old - most
> >much less. The whole "rapture" thing is only about 160 years old - yet
> >these people are sure that they find it in the Bible.
>
> Has nothing to do with the discussion on Sola Scriptura.
But it does have to do with Sola Scriptura in that, these deviations didn't
start until the reformation, all most 500 years ago.
>
> >I find it funny that the things most divisive these days - the Real
> >Presence, the Magesterium, the moral teaching of the Church - all this
> >stuff was not a problem for the early Christians.
>
> Oh Poppycock ... only if you "pretend" that the early church
> subscribed to transubtantiation (it didn't) a (divided) church headed
> in Rome (again, it did not) and the adoption as required teachings of
> the faithful, Mariological myths and legends (again it did not). All
> of this "stuff", these additives of Rome, if removed would do much to
> bring us back to the early church and to reunite us. In actuality,
> with little research anyone can see that it is the Orthodox and
> Protestants that subscribe closer to the early church than the Roman
> Church.
See my statement above, I submit that your conclusion is in error.
Well I suggest you are wrong here also, when Martin Luther proposed the
Palestinian cannon of 39 books in Hebrew as the OT canon. Luther found
justification for removing the seven books from the Bible in the old
concerns of St. Jerome and the Councile of Jamnia that the Greek books had
no Hebrew counterparts. However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at
Qumran has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books,
making their rejection unsupportable on those grounds.
Your statement "The Jewish Torah and Protestant OT support one another."
begged the question. Which OT would you rather use? The OT used by Jesus,
the NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by the Jews who rejected
Christ and persecuted Christianity?
I'm not so sure you didn't just made an argument for Sacred Tradition. For
without Tradition chaos reigns as everyone interprets Scriptures according
to his personal whim.
Peace
---
Mike
Tom A.
Yes, I understand the latin root to "rapture" - but the disconnect
between being caught up with Jesus and the end of the world is what I'm
talking about. And rapture is commonly used (especially now, after the
"Left Behind" books) with pre-trib rapture, which is a new gospel, and
deserves all the respect Paul gives to those.