User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 8:01:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Great article op and thanks. I believe I'll bring this into my classroom lectures when I discuss Roman and Christian art and it's influences on the modern world. God Bless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:34:41 PM EDT
[#2]
People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle—not at all. They sat or stood formally, and everyone faced in one direction: east. Found reference to this eastward facing orientation in, of all places, an analysis of Flannery O'Connor's writing: The Place of the Demonic in the Fiction of Flannery O'Connor It is likely that O'Connor developed her particular regard for the satanic from the church's baptismal liturgy, with its exorcism of the Devil and all his pomps. This exorcism is no general renunciation of evil as a way of life, but a quite specific acknowledgment of the struggle between Christ and Satan for the souls of the faithful. O'Connor herself used a baptismal warning from St. Cyril of Jerusalem as the epigraph for A Good Man Is Hard to Find, her first collection of stories:
"THE DRAGON IS BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, WATCHING THOSE WHO PASS. BEWARE LEST HE DEVOUR YOU. WE GO TO THE FATHER OF SOULS, BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO PASS BY THE DRAGON." Baptism has been closely linked to demonic temptation because it entails a transfer of allegiance from Satan to Christ. Catechumens were baptized on Easter, while stretching out their hands in the fashion of a military sacramentum, the public swearing of an oath. In a crucially symbolic act, they faced westward as they renounced the pompa diaboli. Cyril describes the significance of baptismal exorcism in analogies that John Milbank would employ sixteen centuries later: "As the West is the region of visible darkness, and since Satan, who has darkness for his portion, has his empire in darkness, so, when you turn symbolically toward the West, you renounce this dark and obscure tyrant." The baptismal liturgy of the early church came to its climax as the catechumens were quite literally re-oriented, as Jean Danielou explains: "The profession of faith made while facing the East completed the abjuration made while facing the West." The whole thing is excellent, especially the section A Christian conception of evil. Evil, it follows, literally cannot be. The terrors spawned by the Devil do not genuinely live, however horrible their effects; they dreadfully warp and contort the truth, they horribly parody and ape the beautiful. This means that evil cannot assume true form because it is literally no-thing.
Yet what even Christian theologians often fail to discern is perhaps the most important matter of all: exactly because Satan has no substance or essence, he can feign numerous appearances, the less obvious the more deadly. Indeed, he must assume these many masks, since he always acts in the semblance of some alleged good, having no positive identity of his own. Not by happenstance is he regarded as the supreme Illusionist, the "subtlest beast of the field," "the Father of Lies." Therein lies both the perverse power of the evil as well as the key to interpreting the guises he is given in Scripture. The wrongful granting of speech and light to Satan is revealed among certain evangelical Christians in their obsession with "spiritual warfare." By according quasi-divine reality to Satan, they often make him their prime concern, so that Christ becomes little more than an instrument for defeating the Devil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 10:11:41 PM EDT
[#3]
You mean the Catholic Church, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 10:34:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean the Catholic Church, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:33:07 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Catholic=early church Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You mean the Catholic Church, right? Just ignore the Copts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 1:32:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just ignore the Copts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Catholic=early church Just ignore the Copts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 1:41:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will. I don't remember JC delivering the keys to Andrew. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Catholic=early church Just ignore the Copts. This right here. Look, I don't want to cast aspersions upon other Christian sects, but the Bible and early Christian writings all clearly state that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, and that what he bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven. The early Christian writings show Peter passing this authority down, and so forth until the current Pope. Does this mean the Popes were perfect? Nope. Some of them were absolute tyrants, but interestingly enough, none of them ever taught heresy. This is not because they were infallible, but rather because Christ Himself promised that nothing would stand against the Church He was building upon Peter. That different ideas would pop up during the centuries is understood and even healthy, because they are debated, studied, considered, and ruled upon. This provides us with the assurance that the decisions are overseen by Christ Himself through the Pope. It's the biggest problem I had as a Protestant; every pastor could say whatever he wanted, and was answerable only to however his congregation interpreted their Bible. Not good, IMHO... My .223... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 5:00:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will. I don't remember JC delivering the keys to Andrew. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Catholic=early church Just ignore the Copts. If you ever actually find those keys let me know. I'll bet they're next to some golden plates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 5:04:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This right here. Look, I don't want to cast aspersions upon other Christian sects, but the Bible and early Christian writings all clearly state that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, and that what he bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven. The early Christian writings show Peter passing this authority down, and so forth until the current Pope. Does this mean the Popes were perfect? Nope. Some of them were absolute tyrants, but interestingly enough, none of them ever taught heresy. This is not because they were infallible, but rather because Christ Himself promised that nothing would stand against the Church He was building upon Peter. That different ideas would pop up during the centuries is understood and even healthy, because they are debated, studied, considered, and ruled upon. This provides us with the assurance that the decisions are overseen by Christ Himself through the Pope. It's the biggest problem I had as a Protestant; every pastor could say whatever he wanted, and was answerable only to however his congregation interpreted their Bible. Not good, IMHO... My .223... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Catholic=early church Just ignore the Copts. This right here. Look, I don't want to cast aspersions upon other Christian sects, but the Bible and early Christian writings all clearly state that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, and that what he bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven. The early Christian writings show Peter passing this authority down, and so forth until the current Pope. Does this mean the Popes were perfect? Nope. Some of them were absolute tyrants, but interestingly enough, none of them ever taught heresy. This is not because they were infallible, but rather because Christ Himself promised that nothing would stand against the Church He was building upon Peter. That different ideas would pop up during the centuries is understood and even healthy, because they are debated, studied, considered, and ruled upon. This provides us with the assurance that the decisions are overseen by Christ Himself through the Pope. It's the biggest problem I had as a Protestant; every pastor could say whatever he wanted, and was answerable only to however his congregation interpreted their Bible. Not good, IMHO... My .223... Lol. Answerable. You should hang out with Charismatic Catholics, theyre a hoot. I'll take you to Ecuador if you like and introduce you to some Liberationist nuns. If they don't try to kill us that is. There's as much variance in Catholicism as there is Protestantism. And a Pope has never taught heresy? Since you guys convieniently forget the Copts I guess it's easy to forget the Aryan controversy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 5:19:08 PM EDT
[#10]
I think we can do without the sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 5:45:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. Answerable. You should hang out with Charismatic Catholics, theyre a hoot. I'll take you to Ecuador if you like and introduce you to some Liberationist nuns. If they don't try to kill us that is. There's as much variance in Catholicism as there is Protestantism. And a Pope has never taught heresy? Since you guys convieniently forget the Copts I guess it's easy to forget the Aryan controversy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Catholic=early church Just ignore the Copts. This right here. Look, I don't want to cast aspersions upon other Christian sects, but the Bible and early Christian writings all clearly state that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, and that what he bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven. The early Christian writings show Peter passing this authority down, and so forth until the current Pope. Does this mean the Popes were perfect? Nope. Some of them were absolute tyrants, but interestingly enough, none of them ever taught heresy. This is not because they were infallible, but rather because Christ Himself promised that nothing would stand against the Church He was building upon Peter. That different ideas would pop up during the centuries is understood and even healthy, because they are debated, studied, considered, and ruled upon. This provides us with the assurance that the decisions are overseen by Christ Himself through the Pope. It's the biggest problem I had as a Protestant; every pastor could say whatever he wanted, and was answerable only to however his congregation interpreted their Bible. Not good, IMHO... My .223... Lol. Answerable. You should hang out with Charismatic Catholics, theyre a hoot. I'll take you to Ecuador if you like and introduce you to some Liberationist nuns. If they don't try to kill us that is. There's as much variance in Catholicism as there is Protestantism. And a Pope has never taught heresy? Since you guys convieniently forget the Copts I guess it's easy to forget the Aryan controversy. Here we go... No need to "forget" anyone. Sorry, but no Pope taught Arianism and neither has any Council affirmed those teachings. That is the point.. Estimates vary but something like half or even more of confessing Christians affirmed Arian teaching {including some Bishops} tho no Pope ever did. In fact, glad you brought it up as the history of the Church and Arianism is very like that going on today with Protestants. Around half the "Christian" world is tainted by Protestant heresy, with several Popes being quite chummy with certain teachings, but no Pope has rejected Church teaching and led the Church into heresy on the central issues of Protestant teaching. Very similar to the popularity of Arianism and the steadfastness of the Church. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 6:18:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here we go... No need to "forget" anyone. Sorry, but no Pope taught Arianism and neither has any Council affirmed those teachings. That is the point.. Estimates vary but something like half or even more of confessing Christians affirmed Arian teaching {including some Bishops} tho no Pope ever did. In fact, glad you brought it up as the history of the Church and Arianism is very like that going on today with Protestants. Around half the "Christian" world is tainted by Protestant heresy, with several Popes being quite chummy with certain teachings, but no Pope has rejected Church teaching and led the Church into heresy on the central issues of Protestant teaching. Very similar to the popularity of Arianism and the steadfastness of the Church. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just ignore the Copts. This right here. Look, I don't want to cast aspersions upon other Christian sects, but the Bible and early Christian writings all clearly state that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, and that what he bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven. The early Christian writings show Peter passing this authority down, and so forth until the current Pope. Does this mean the Popes were perfect? Nope. Some of them were absolute tyrants, but interestingly enough, none of them ever taught heresy. This is not because they were infallible, but rather because Christ Himself promised that nothing would stand against the Church He was building upon Peter. That different ideas would pop up during the centuries is understood and even healthy, because they are debated, studied, considered, and ruled upon. This provides us with the assurance that the decisions are overseen by Christ Himself through the Pope. It's the biggest problem I had as a Protestant; every pastor could say whatever he wanted, and was answerable only to however his congregation interpreted their Bible. Not good, IMHO... My .223... Lol. Answerable. You should hang out with Charismatic Catholics, theyre a hoot. I'll take you to Ecuador if you like and introduce you to some Liberationist nuns. If they don't try to kill us that is. There's as much variance in Catholicism as there is Protestantism. And a Pope has never taught heresy? Since you guys convieniently forget the Copts I guess it's easy to forget the Aryan controversy. Here we go... No need to "forget" anyone. Sorry, but no Pope taught Arianism and neither has any Council affirmed those teachings. That is the point.. Estimates vary but something like half or even more of confessing Christians affirmed Arian teaching {including some Bishops} tho no Pope ever did. In fact, glad you brought it up as the history of the Church and Arianism is very like that going on today with Protestants. Around half the "Christian" world is tainted by Protestant heresy, with several Popes being quite chummy with certain teachings, but no Pope has rejected Church teaching and led the Church into heresy on the central issues of Protestant teaching. Very similar to the popularity of Arianism and the steadfastness of the Church. So do you think that Liberius was simply a semi Aryan, an Arian under duress, or some other apologetical revision of history. I'm actually curious of your answer. I'd like to know if it's better for a Pope to be soft on Trinitarianism or shift theological positions to appease political rulers. And it's OK if you want to forget about Felix. He's not the kind of guy I'd want to remember either. Though I do appreciate you calling me and my Protestant brothers heretics. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:11:28 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So do you think that Liberius was simply a semi Aryan, an Arian under duress, or some other apologetical revision of history. I'm actually curious of your answer. I'd like to know if it's better for a Pope to be soft on Trinitarianism or shift theological positions to appease political rulers. And it's OK if you want to forget about Felix. He's not the kind of guy I'd want to remember either. Though I do appreciate you calling me and my Protestant brothers heretics. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. OK. Tell us first what you believe to be true about both Liberius and Felix. As for Protestants being "heretics", they aren't, per se. Read what I typed. Their teachings are heresies. But as for the individuals, they may or may not be. If they understood the Catholic faith and affirmed it and then rejected it then they are by definition heretics. If they are born and raised in a Protestant world, they may believe untrue teaching, but they are not heretics by definition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:24:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. Tell us first what you believe to be true about both Liberius and Felix. As for Protestants being "heretics", they aren't, per se. Read what I typed. Their teachings are heresies. But as for the individuals, they may or may not be. If they understood the Catholic faith and affirmed it and then rejected it then they are by definition heretics. If they are born and raised in a Protestant world, they may believe untrue teaching, but they are not heretics by definition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So do you think that Liberius was simply a semi Aryan, an Arian under duress, or some other apologetical revision of history. I'm actually curious of your answer. I'd like to know if it's better for a Pope to be soft on Trinitarianism or shift theological positions to appease political rulers. And it's OK if you want to forget about Felix. He's not the kind of guy I'd want to remember either. Though I do appreciate you calling me and my Protestant brothers heretics. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. OK. Tell us first what you believe to be true about both Liberius and Felix. As for Protestants being "heretics", they aren't, per se. Read what I typed. Their teachings are heresies. But as for the individuals, they may or may not be. If they understood the Catholic faith and affirmed it and then rejected it then they are by definition heretics. If they are born and raised in a Protestant world, they may believe untrue teaching, but they are not heretics by definition. Verbal acrobatics are fun aren't they. I've found people who engage in them to be very trustworthy. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:33:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Verbal acrobatics are fun aren't they. I've found people who engage in them to be very trustworthy. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So do you think that Liberius was simply a semi Aryan, an Arian under duress, or some other apologetical revision of history. I'm actually curious of your answer. I'd like to know if it's better for a Pope to be soft on Trinitarianism or shift theological positions to appease political rulers. And it's OK if you want to forget about Felix. He's not the kind of guy I'd want to remember either. Though I do appreciate you calling me and my Protestant brothers heretics. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. OK. Tell us first what you believe to be true about both Liberius and Felix. As for Protestants being "heretics", they aren't, per se. Read what I typed. Their teachings are heresies. But as for the individuals, they may or may not be. If they understood the Catholic faith and affirmed it and then rejected it then they are by definition heretics. If they are born and raised in a Protestant world, they may believe untrue teaching, but they are not heretics by definition. Verbal acrobatics are fun aren't they. I've found people who engage in them to be very trustworthy. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. No acrobatics. You entered a thread about Church layout. The most ancient and biblical worship associated with Jesus Christ is the Mass and its impact on building structures. Your "beliefs" are novel and they are very likely not worth discussing simply because I was once a "well-informed" Protestant with a Masters degree from a Protestant seminary and am familiar with the approach you have taken. You grab some suppositions about certain Popes, deny anything else and then proclaim your arguments have merit. Like you, I did it for years until I studied the history of the faith. As for popes and their personal beliefs {as opposed to their proclamations of dogma} they are irrelevant to the dogma of Papal infallibility. Indeed, a Pope can be wrong on numerous dogmatic issues and yet still be infallible, because "infallibility" is a technical term. It refers very specifically to what a Pope does to Church teaching, not to what a Pope himself personally believes. Everyone knows many Popes did bad things. Indeed, the First Pope denied Christ at the very most important time for a man to affirm him. THAT is not infallibility. And it also isn't teaching heresy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:34:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Verbal acrobatics are fun aren't they. I've found people who engage in them to be very trustworthy. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As for Protestants being "heretics", they aren't, per se. Read what I typed. Their teachings are heresies. But as for the individuals, they may or may not be. If they understood the Catholic faith and affirmed it and then rejected it then they are by definition heretics. If they are born and raised in a Protestant world, they may believe untrue teaching, but they are not heretics by definition. Verbal acrobatics are fun aren't they. I've found people who engage in them to be very trustworthy. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. Clearly anyone who believes in: 1) The Trinitarian conception of God. 2) Original Sin and the Free Will of Man. 3) The Primacy of Christ's Sacrifice and His Sacraments as a means of salvation. Is a Christian free from the stain of heresy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:45:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you ever actually find those keys let me know. I'll bet they're next to some golden plates. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Catholic=early church Just ignore the Copts. If you ever actually find those keys let me know. I'll bet they're next to some golden plates. Isaiah 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. Matthew 16:18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:48:41 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No acrobatics. You entered a thread about Church layout. The most ancient and biblical worship associated with Jesus Christ is the Mass and its impact on building structures. Your "beliefs" are novel and they are very likely not worth discussing simply because I was once a "well-informed" Protestant with a Masters degree from a Protestant seminary and am familiar with the approach you have taken. You grab some suppositions about certain Popes, deny anything else and then proclaim your arguments have merit. Like you, I did it for years until I studied the history of the faith. As for popes and their personal beliefs {as opposed to their proclamations of dogma} they are irrelevant to the dogma of Papal infallibility. Indeed, a Pope can be wrong on numerous dogmatic issues and yet still be infallible, because "infallibility" is a technical term. It refers very specifically to what a Pope does to Church teaching, not to what a Pope himself personally believes. Everyone knows many Popes did bad things. Indeed, the First Pope denied Christ at the very most important time for a man to affirm him. THAT is not infallibility. And it also isn't teaching heresy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So do you think that Liberius was simply a semi Aryan, an Arian under duress, or some other apologetical revision of history. I'm actually curious of your answer. I'd like to know if it's better for a Pope to be soft on Trinitarianism or shift theological positions to appease political rulers. And it's OK if you want to forget about Felix. He's not the kind of guy I'd want to remember either. Though I do appreciate you calling me and my Protestant brothers heretics. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. OK. Tell us first what you believe to be true about both Liberius and Felix. As for Protestants being "heretics", they aren't, per se. Read what I typed. Their teachings are heresies. But as for the individuals, they may or may not be. If they understood the Catholic faith and affirmed it and then rejected it then they are by definition heretics. If they are born and raised in a Protestant world, they may believe untrue teaching, but they are not heretics by definition. Verbal acrobatics are fun aren't they. I've found people who engage in them to be very trustworthy. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. No acrobatics. You entered a thread about Church layout. The most ancient and biblical worship associated with Jesus Christ is the Mass and its impact on building structures. Your "beliefs" are novel and they are very likely not worth discussing simply because I was once a "well-informed" Protestant with a Masters degree from a Protestant seminary and am familiar with the approach you have taken. You grab some suppositions about certain Popes, deny anything else and then proclaim your arguments have merit. Like you, I did it for years until I studied the history of the faith. As for popes and their personal beliefs {as opposed to their proclamations of dogma} they are irrelevant to the dogma of Papal infallibility. Indeed, a Pope can be wrong on numerous dogmatic issues and yet still be infallible, because "infallibility" is a technical term. It refers very specifically to what a Pope does to Church teaching, not to what a Pope himself personally believes. Everyone knows many Popes did bad things. Indeed, the First Pope denied Christ at the very most important time for a man to affirm him. THAT is not infallibility. And it also isn't teaching heresy. Grandpa had a saying about assumptions. I forget how it goes, but it doesn't work out well for anyone. I know how Papal infallability works. It was stated earlier in this thread that Pope have never held a heretical position. Do you now refute that? Why won't you just answer my original question? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:51:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Whenever a Protestant Fundamentalist starts an argument centered around the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, I reach for the popcorn.
Many laughs are sure to follow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:54:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whenever a Protestant Fundamentalist starts an argument centered around the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, I reach for the popcorn. Many laughs are sure to follow. Thank you for the personal attack. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:55:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Grandpa had a saying about assumptions. I forget how it goes, but it doesn't work out well for anyone. I know how Papal infallability works. It was stated earlier in this thread that Pope have never held a heretical position. Do you now refute that? Why won't you just answer my original question? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So do you think that Liberius was simply a semi Aryan, an Arian under duress, or some other apologetical revision of history. I'm actually curious of your answer. I'd like to know if it's better for a Pope to be soft on Trinitarianism or shift theological positions to appease political rulers. And it's OK if you want to forget about Felix. He's not the kind of guy I'd want to remember either. Though I do appreciate you calling me and my Protestant brothers heretics. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. OK. Tell us first what you believe to be true about both Liberius and Felix. As for Protestants being "heretics", they aren't, per se. Read what I typed. Their teachings are heresies. But as for the individuals, they may or may not be. If they understood the Catholic faith and affirmed it and then rejected it then they are by definition heretics. If they are born and raised in a Protestant world, they may believe untrue teaching, but they are not heretics by definition. Verbal acrobatics are fun aren't they. I've found people who engage in them to be very trustworthy. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. No acrobatics. You entered a thread about Church layout. The most ancient and biblical worship associated with Jesus Christ is the Mass and its impact on building structures. Your "beliefs" are novel and they are very likely not worth discussing simply because I was once a "well-informed" Protestant with a Masters degree from a Protestant seminary and am familiar with the approach you have taken. You grab some suppositions about certain Popes, deny anything else and then proclaim your arguments have merit. Like you, I did it for years until I studied the history of the faith. As for popes and their personal beliefs {as opposed to their proclamations of dogma} they are irrelevant to the dogma of Papal infallibility. Indeed, a Pope can be wrong on numerous dogmatic issues and yet still be infallible, because "infallibility" is a technical term. It refers very specifically to what a Pope does to Church teaching, not to what a Pope himself personally believes. Everyone knows many Popes did bad things. Indeed, the First Pope denied Christ at the very most important time for a man to affirm him. THAT is not infallibility. And it also isn't teaching heresy. Grandpa had a saying about assumptions. I forget how it goes, but it doesn't work out well for anyone. I know how Papal infallability works. It was stated earlier in this thread that Pope have never held a heretical position. Do you now refute that? Why won't you just answer my original question? "Holding" a heretical position has nothing to do with infallibility. I really do not think you understand Catholic teaching. That does answer the original question. You might have to think about that a bit but keep at it, it'll come eventually. ETA: I don't consider affirmation of heresy to be a badge worth wearing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:56:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Found them! Interesting that a professed christian denies the words of Christ himself. Isaiah 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. Matthew 16:18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Catholic=early church Just ignore the Copts. If you ever actually find those keys let me know. I'll bet they're next to some golden plates. Isaiah 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. Matthew 16:18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Thank you. May what has been said of Christ be said of me. Do you want to know who the Patristics thought that Isa. 22:21 referred to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:59:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Holding" a heretical position has nothing to do with infallibility. I'm glad you agree with me. Perhaps you should speak to your fellow Catholic who made the claim. I really do not think you understand Catholic teaching. That does answer the original question. You might have to think about that a bit but keep at it, it'll come eventually. ETA: I don't consider affirmation of heresy to be a badge worth wearing. It all depends on where it comes from. Jesus was accused of heresy after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:16:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Catholic=early church Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You mean the Catholic Church, right? Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:23:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Don't make a post like that in this forum again. ~ medicmandan
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:47:38 PM EDT
[#26]
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:28:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:28:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Holding" a heretical position has nothing to do with infallibility. I'm glad you agree with me. Perhaps you should speak to your fellow Catholic who made the claim. I really do not think you understand Catholic teaching. That does answer the original question. You might have to think about that a bit but keep at it, it'll come eventually. ETA: I don't consider affirmation of heresy to be a badge worth wearing. It all depends on where it comes from. Jesus was accused of heresy after all. I must have missed the post where the Pope "held a heretical position". One member stated that heresy was not taught by a Pope, and that is true, but as for what every single individual Pope believed personally about every doctrine which is the holding of a doctrine, we do not know and neither is it relevant to the dogma of Papal infallibility. So are you now saying that Jesus taught heresy? Heresy is not heresy because some group claims it is. It is heresy because it disagrees with the teachings of our Lord and His Church. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:32:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You mean the Catholic Church, right? Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:52:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prove otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You mean the Catholic Church, right? Nope. You prove it. You profess it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:56:48 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Stop at the Bible. That is the only thing I need to read and I don't find the catholic belief/religious system in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:18:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stop at the Bible. That is the only thing I need to read and I don't find the catholic belief/religious system in it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Stop at the Bible. That is the only thing I need to read and I don't find the catholic belief/religious system in it. 1} The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible. 2} The Tradition of the Church PREceded the establishment of the canon of Scripture by 400 years. Witjput a Pope you would not have that bible {Damasus} 3} The Church gave you the WHOLE Bible, including the parts the Protestants sacrilegiously and blasphemously fairly recently tossed in the garbage. {So much for "Bible only"...} 4} The entire "religious system" of the Catholic Church is IN the Bible. Simply put, THAT is why I became a Catholic. Read it cover-to-cover, over-and-over, and you will see. It is not hard to find at all, tho anything is hard to find if you make up your mind not to find it before you go looking... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:46:40 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Amen! And I say that with no pride or malice whatsoever. And for the record, I do not consider mainline Protestants as heretics. They are mistaken about a great deal, and some of the things they believe are, strictly speaking, heresy, but in no way does that equate to a judgement about their love for and faith in Christ. In that regard, we all stand together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:52:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1} The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible. 2} The Tradition of the Church PREceded the establishment of the canon of Scripture by 400 years. Witjput a Pope you would not have that bible {Damasus} 3} The Church gave you the WHOLE Bible, including the parts the Protestants sacrilegiously and blasphemously fairly recently tossed in the garbage. {So much for "Bible only"...} 4} The entire "religious system" of the Catholic Church is IN the Bible. Simply put, THAT is why I became a Catholic. Read it cover-to-cover, over-and-over, and you will see. It is not hard to find at all, tho anything is hard to find if you make up your mind not to find it before you go looking... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Stop at the Bible. That is the only thing I need to read and I don't find the catholic belief/religious system in it. 1} The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible. 2} The Tradition of the Church PREceded the establishment of the canon of Scripture by 400 years. Witjput a Pope you would not have that bible {Damasus} 3} The Church gave you the WHOLE Bible, including the parts the Protestants sacrilegiously and blasphemously fairly recently tossed in the garbage. {So much for "Bible only"...} 4} The entire "religious system" of the Catholic Church is IN the Bible. Simply put, THAT is why I became a Catholic. Read it cover-to-cover, over-and-over, and you will see. It is not hard to find at all, tho anything is hard to find if you make up your mind not to find it before you go looking... Listen to this man. I was raised Catholic, but later in life went Protestant/Evangelical. When I met my wife, she asked me to go back to the Catholic Church with her, and I did so for her. Reluctantly. I began studying much of what I had been taught by my Protestant/Evangelical brothers, and discovered it was wrong. Big time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 12:15:05 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You prove it. You profess it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You mean the Catholic Church, right? Nope. You prove it. You profess it. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." -- John Henry Cardinal Newman |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 12:17:49 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. That's a great non answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 12:20:49 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must have missed the post where the Pope "held a heretical position". You miss a lot of things. One member stated that heresy was not taught by a Pope, Athanasius would disagree. So are you now saying that Jesus taught heresy? Improved reading abilities or improved integrity will let you answer that for yourself. Heresy is not heresy because some group claims it is. It is heresy because it disagrees with the teachings of our Lord and His Church. Agreed Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Holding" a heretical position has nothing to do with infallibility. I'm glad you agree with me. Perhaps you should speak to your fellow Catholic who made the claim. I really do not think you understand Catholic teaching. That does answer the original question. You might have to think about that a bit but keep at it, it'll come eventually. ETA: I don't consider affirmation of heresy to be a badge worth wearing. It all depends on where it comes from. Jesus was accused of heresy after all. I must have missed the post where the Pope "held a heretical position". You miss a lot of things. One member stated that heresy was not taught by a Pope, Athanasius would disagree. So are you now saying that Jesus taught heresy? Improved reading abilities or improved integrity will let you answer that for yourself. Heresy is not heresy because some group claims it is. It is heresy because it disagrees with the teachings of our Lord and His Church. Agreed |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 12:35:14 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1} The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible. Really? Peter says "that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. " You'd think the first Pope wouldn't have screwed up like that. 2} The Tradition of the Church PREceded the establishment of the canon of Scripture by 400 years. Witjput a Pope you would not have that bible {Damasus} Man, what was Origen writing all of those commentaries on then? 3} The Church gave you the WHOLE Bible, including the parts the Protestants sacrilegiously and blasphemously fairly recently tossed in the garbage. {So much for "Bible only"...} 4} The entire "religious system" of the Catholic Church is IN the Bible. Well, like you said, people will see what they see. Simply put, THAT is why I became a Catholic. Read it cover-to-cover, over-and-over, and you will see. It is not hard to find at all, tho anything is hard to find if you make up your mind not to find it before you go looking... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? highlighter; GREAT question. Reason I converted from Evangelicalism to the teachings of the true Church was due to the answer to this question. Read Holy Scripture. Read history of the Christian faith. Read the Early Church Fathers. Love Jesus. You will become a Catholic. Stop at the Bible. That is the only thing I need to read and I don't find the catholic belief/religious system in it. 1} The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible. Really? Peter says "that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. " You'd think the first Pope wouldn't have screwed up like that. 2} The Tradition of the Church PREceded the establishment of the canon of Scripture by 400 years. Witjput a Pope you would not have that bible {Damasus} Man, what was Origen writing all of those commentaries on then? 3} The Church gave you the WHOLE Bible, including the parts the Protestants sacrilegiously and blasphemously fairly recently tossed in the garbage. {So much for "Bible only"...} 4} The entire "religious system" of the Catholic Church is IN the Bible. Well, like you said, people will see what they see. Simply put, THAT is why I became a Catholic. Read it cover-to-cover, over-and-over, and you will see. It is not hard to find at all, tho anything is hard to find if you make up your mind not to find it before you go looking... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 12:39:59 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bible and the historical record back my claim. You cannot refute it. Sola scriptura and sola fide were conjured in the 16th century. Protestant fundamentalism did not exist until the 19th century. How could either of those represent 'the early church?' "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." -- John Henry Cardinal Newman Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Catholic=early church Nope. You prove it. You profess it. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." -- John Henry Cardinal Newman The earliest records of Copts in Alexandria place their beginning at the early to mid 40's. Earliest record of a church in Rome is the mid 60's. Magic metaphorical keys aside, the Copts were up and running first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 12:56:07 AM EDT
[#40]
I can't believe that catholics think that the only people who believed in Jesus and his teaching were catholics. You see I know from personal experience that catholics are just as concerned with, if not more so, with promoting/advancing the catholic church and not Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus are all that I'm concerned with and no the teaching of a religious establishment. I believe in Jesus not matter the name on the outside of a building as long as the lessons of Jesus are being taught. Catholics promote Catholicism.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 8:27:07 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't believe that catholics think that the only people who believed in Jesus and his teaching were catholics. You see I know from personal experience that catholics are just as concerned with, if not more so, with promoting/advancing the catholic church and not Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus are all that I'm concerned with and no the teaching of a religious establishment. I believe in Jesus not matter the name on the outside of a building as long as the lessons of Jesus are being taught. Catholics promote Catholicism. That's not what we say. And to us, Catholicism and the Word of Christ are one and the same. To borrow a phrase, it's isn't that our Protestant brothers are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so. You would also be stunned to realize just how much we agree with you on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 8:50:50 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for the personal attack. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whenever a Protestant Fundamentalist starts an argument centered around the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, I reach for the popcorn. Many laughs are sure to follow. Thank you for the personal attack. I wear it as a badge of honor that I might be maligned just as Christ was. A servant is not greater than his master after all. LOL, talk about Pot v. Kettle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 8:53:21 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does one equate Paul and Peter and the rest of Jesus' disciples ministries to the catholic church? Where in the NT does it record catholics beliefs or religious practices? Are you joking? The earliest of the NT writings, 1 Corinthians, refers to the celebration of the Eucharist as an already established practice. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 9:52:51 AM EDT
[#44]
If you are referring to The Lord's Supper, Jesus told ALL followers to do that. Not something the catholics came up with.
 You guys actually think that Paul and Peter practiced "Catholicism"? If it ain't in the book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John it isn't from Jesus but man.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 10:00:47 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you are referring to The Lord's Supper, Jesus told ALL followers to do that. Not something the catholics came up with. You guys actually think that Paul and Peter practiced "Catholicism"? If it ain't in the book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John it isn't from Jesus but man.And yet Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were men, and everything Catholicism stands for is based on those books and the rest of the NT... Are you now suggesting that everything besides the Gospels is not to be read as Scripture? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 10:56:34 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Found them! Interesting that a professed christian denies the words of Christ himself. Isaiah 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. Matthew 16:18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. FYI, the passage in Isaiah are not the words of Christ, but of God the Father about Christ. If you look back at the beginning of the quote (verse 15), it tells you exactly who is speaking: "Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts...." The Hebrew word translated "GOD" is Yehovih, or Jehovah. The Vulgate translates the words "Lord GOD" as "Dominus Deus." There's really not any questioning that the words in Isaiah 22:21 are those of God, not of Christ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 11:03:23 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you are referring to The Lord's Supper, Jesus told ALL followers to do that. Not something the catholics came up with. You guys actually think that Paul and Peter practiced "Catholicism"? If it ain't in the book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John it isn't from Jesus but man.Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you are referring to The Lord's Supper, Jesus told ALL followers to do that. Not something the catholics came up with. You guys actually think that Paul and Peter practiced "Catholicism"? If it ain't in the book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John it isn't from Jesus but man.First, remember that Jesus was indeed...a man. He is the Word made flesh and He dwelt among us as a man. He died as a man, and he came back from death not as some ghost or spirit, but as a man who conquered death. Second, remember that the words of Jesus in the four gospels were not recorded by Jesus. They were recorded by four of His apostles, who also wrote Acts and some of the epistles which you seem to be discounting. Jesus Himself, while He was on earth, did not write one word of the Bible. Third, and you may or may not buy this as they are the words of Paul, but: 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Not some Scripture, not just the Scripture in the gospels, but ALL Scripture. ETA: If you don't believe that Paul is to be believed, note that Luke, who recorded one of the gospels and is therefore one of the four writers you believe, also recorded that Paul was Christ's own chosen vessel. Luke records these words of Christ in Acts: Acts 9:15, 16
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 11:08:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were men, and everything Catholicism stands for is based on those books and the rest of the NT... Are you now suggesting that everything besides the Gospels is not to be read as Scripture? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you are referring to The Lord's Supper, Jesus told ALL followers to do that. Not something the catholics came up with. You guys actually think that Paul and Peter practiced "Catholicism"? If it ain't in the book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John it isn't from Jesus but man.And yet Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were men, and everything Catholicism stands for is based on those books and the rest of the NT... Are you now suggesting that everything besides the Gospels is not to be read as Scripture? My beliefs are based not on men but the eye witness accounts of Christ's teachings. To me the rest of the NT is very good and valuable information that is put forth by disciples of Christ to other Christians giving them advice and instructions on how to be Christians and not to lose faith. Good and valuable information to be sure but not the Word of God. This is my belief and I know it's not the "Protestant" beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 11:13:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, remember that Jesus was indeed...a man. He is the Word made flesh and He dwelt among us as a man. He died as a man, and he came back from death not as some ghost or spirit, but as a man who conquered death. Second, remember that the words of Jesus in the four gospels were not recorded by Jesus. They were recorded by four of His apostles, who also wrote Acts and some of the epistles which you seem to be discounting. Jesus Himself, while He was on earth, did not write one word of the Bible. Third, and you may or may not buy this as they are the words of Paul, but: Not some Scripture, not just the Scripture in the gospels, but ALL Scripture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you are referring to The Lord's Supper, Jesus told ALL followers to do that. Not something the catholics came up with. You guys actually think that Paul and Peter practiced "Catholicism"? If it ain't in the book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John it isn't from Jesus but man.First, remember that Jesus was indeed...a man. He is the Word made flesh and He dwelt among us as a man. He died as a man, and he came back from death not as some ghost or spirit, but as a man who conquered death. Second, remember that the words of Jesus in the four gospels were not recorded by Jesus. They were recorded by four of His apostles, who also wrote Acts and some of the epistles which you seem to be discounting. Jesus Himself, while He was on earth, did not write one word of the Bible. Third, and you may or may not buy this as they are the words of Paul, but: 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Not some Scripture, not just the Scripture in the gospels, but ALL Scripture. Like you said, Paul. The four Gospels were recorded by witnesses to Christ's teaching were they not? If you don't believe that then one can not believe in Jesus because what other "proof" do you have he even existed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2014 11:15:09 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like you said, Paul. The four Gospels were recorded by witnesses to Christ's teaching were they not? If you don't believe that then one can not believe in Jesus because what other "proof" do you have he even existed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like you said, Paul. The four Gospels were recorded by witnesses to Christ's teaching were they not? If you don't believe that then one can not believe in Jesus because what other "proof" do you have he even existed? See edit. Since I was late making it, here you go: If you don't believe that Paul is to be believed, note that Luke, who recorded one of the gospels and is therefore one of the four writers you believe, also recorded that Paul was Christ's own chosen vessel. Luke, the same guy who wrote one of the gospels, records these words of Christ in Acts: Acts 9:15, 16
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” Are we to believe Christ's words recorded by Luke in the book of Luke but to doubt the words of Christ recorded by Luke in the book of Acts? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
