User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2017 2:46:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This post has bothered me for a while. You are comparing the Catholic Church, the historical church, with the nation of Israel. Clearly the Israelites and the Jews strayed from orthodoxy many times throughout the Old Testament as evidenced by the examples you cited. During any of those 'iniquities' did they ever lose their birthright? Were they ever NOT or NO LONGER the people of God? Did God rescind his promise to Abraham? To any particular Jews? To one tribe or another? To the nation? No. Never. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This post has bothered me for a while. You are comparing the Catholic Church, the historical church, with the nation of Israel. Clearly the Israelites and the Jews strayed from orthodoxy many times throughout the Old Testament as evidenced by the examples you cited. During any of those 'iniquities' did they ever lose their birthright? Were they ever NOT or NO LONGER the people of God? Did God rescind his promise to Abraham? To any particular Jews? To one tribe or another? To the nation? No. Never. We agree that even though many, most, or indeed almost all were unfaithful then, or are unfaithful now, it does not negate the promise of God (Romans 3:3). Quoted:
By the same token, the Church of history has weathered many heresies but has never lost the promise made by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. To say otherwise is not biblical and refutes the very words of the savior.' |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 1:04:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your brain knows more than God? Should bend to your brain? The words right before remembrance are THIS IS MY FLESH THIS IS MY BLOOD. UNLESS YOU EAT OF THE FLESH OF ... Pretty clear . Is it coincidence that the very first miracle Christ performed in his public life was to turn water into wine? We have to remember who said these words and the miracles he performed repeatedly. Why would this be any less miraculous? Because our logical brains say so? I'll pose this question. Does math really exist or did we make it up? Math is a useful concept but does it truly exist. The logical mind would say yes. But its contrived to organize things and in may ways it "makes sense". But scientists and mathematicians when faced with providing proof of existence can't do it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have what God gave man. A brain. "Do this in remembrance of me" Tells you it wasn't meant to mean it becomes his flesh. (yet I'm the one who picks and chooses) How strange of doctrine would it have been to the Jewish priest, to see a man say "do this in remembrance of me", when sacrifice(firstling of the flock, with out blemish etc) was to God. Yet there was a man telling his followers to do so! Second, reason they would distance themselves, Jesus spoke in parables so that those seeing would not see. Those who did or might have taken it literally would also leave, like the unwise virgins. That is why they would not stay with him. John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.." Lays it out pretty plainly. But those that follow him will take of bread and wine in remembering his Flesh and blood given for them. Not to them. For what purpose would it serve, to actually become "his flesh"? None. The other half of verse 63 makes it pretty plain what the "life' is really, 63....the words that I speak unto you(the two great commandments etc..) they are spirit, and they are life. His followers were to put off the natural man, the flesh. He was handing them bread and wine, not fillet of Jesus with a side of blood. It was the Jews and fools who thought he was preaching substantiation, who seeing, did not see. That he would die and be raised again. And then yourself and TWIRE can just ignore the account in Luke somehow. He's giving them bread and wine for them to remember him for what he was about to do. If I'm on my death bed and give you my favorite AR and say "remember me Bro!" that AR isn't me...... Symbolism, there wasn't really twenty virgins. Bread and wine are bread and wine, it's what it represented. The Spirit, not the flesh... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2017 8:35:31 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The church has indeed weathered many heresies and persecutions, and has not forgotten which rock Jesus Christ founded his church (i.e. "son of God" and "messiah"). However, many found their church on another rock than the one Christ spoke about as they claim he is something or someone else. Below are the known non-Catholic commentaries on Matthew 16:18 — William Hendriksen— member of the Reformed Christian Church and Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary “meaning is, You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church. Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church. Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” [New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647 JPK page 14] Gerhard Maier— leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian “Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.” [The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58 JPK pages 16-17] Donald A. Carson III— Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean stone and rock respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (you are kepha and on this kepha), since the word was used both for a name and for a rock. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” [The Expositors Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368 JPK pages 17-18]“The word Peter petros, meaning rock (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken rock to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” [Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78 JPK page 18] John Peter Lange— German Protestant scholar “The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun…. The proper translation then would be: Thou art Rock, and upon this rock, etc.” [Langes Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293 JPK page 19]“Thou are kepha, and on this kepha…. Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356 JPK page 20] J. Knox Chamblin— Presbyterian and New Testament Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary “By the words this rock Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peters confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.” [Matthew Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742 JPK page 30] Craig L. Blomberg— Baptist and Professor of New Testament Denver Seminary “Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname Peter (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus declaration, You are Peter, parallels Peters confession, You are the Christ, as if to say, Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are. The expression this rock almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following the Christ in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peters name (Petros) and the word rock (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” [The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252 JPK pages 31-32] David Hill— Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield, England “On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the rock as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” [The Gospel of Matthew. The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261 JPK page 34] Suzanne de Dietrich— Presbyterian theologian “The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. Simon, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the rock on which God will build the new community.” [The Laymans Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93 JPK page 34] Donald A. Hagner— Fuller Theological Seminary "The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built … The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.” [Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470 JPK pages 36-37] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2017 6:15:56 PM EDT
[#4]
As someone who's been both a Protestant and a Catholic I ask the question "Why do you need to be either/or?" Why don't you just be a Christian and follow what the Bible says? (Matt. 15:9, 1 Cor. 1:10-13, Rev. 18:4)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2017 6:28:16 PM EDT
[#5]
We do spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about the 5% of disagreement we have and neglect the 95% of common beliefs we share.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2017 7:27:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who's been both a Protestant and a Catholic I ask the question "Why do you need to be either/or?" Why don't you just be a Christian and follow what the Bible says? (Matt. 15:9, 1 Cor. 1:10-13, Rev. 18:4) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2017 11:17:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who's been both a Protestant and a Catholic I ask the question "Why do you need to be either/or?" Why don't you just be a Christian and follow what the Bible says? (Matt. 15:9, 1 Cor. 1:10-13, Rev. 18:4) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2017 11:24:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about the 5% of disagreement we have and neglect the 95% of common beliefs we share. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 5:22:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who's been both a Protestant and a Catholic I ask the question "Why do you need to be either/or?" Why don't you just be a Christian and follow what the Bible says? (Matt. 15:9, 1 Cor. 1:10-13, Rev. 18:4) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 5:26:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amen! There's so much to be learned from the Word. Traditions of men only distort our Father's truth. Age of Accountability Total Depravity of Man Personal Lord and Saviour Ask Jesus into your Heart The Rapture Invisible Church Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head “Personal Relationship with Christ” Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior Enthroning the Bible in your Heart “Covered with the righteousness of Christ” Limited Atonement Imputed righteousness Altar Call Dedication; Rededication “Giving your Life to the Lord” Revival Inerrancy Eternal Security “Once saved, always saved” |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 5:57:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NOT found in the Bible, and most certainly NOT Catholic phrases Age of Accountability Total Depravity of Man Personal Lord and Saviour Ask Jesus into your Heart The Rapture Invisible Church Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head “Personal Relationship with Christ” Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior Enthroning the Bible in your Heart “Covered with the righteousness of Christ” Limited Atonement Imputed righteousness Altar Call Dedication; Rededication “Giving your Life to the Lord” Revival Inerrancy Eternal Security “Once saved, always saved” Just because the word isn't there doesn't mean the concept isn't. That's not a dig at the RCC. That's just saying being consistent, those have to be listed too. I see ALOT in the list that you posted that I agree with you on 100%. Others that I don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 8:53:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of stuff you can add to that.....Trinity, bodily assumption of Mary, Transsubstantiation, Pope, Hail Mary, Bible...etc.. Just because the word isn't there doesn't mean the concept isn't. That's not a dig at the RCC. That's just saying being consistent, those have to be listed too. I see ALOT in the list that you posted that I agree with you on 100%. Others that I don't. There's been plenty of times that I've seen people that won't take a portion of scripture as literal, simply because it doesn't fit in with the traditions that aren't scriptural, but have been handed down through generations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 9:01:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In case you haven't been reading...in the post apostolic period, there was no canon of scripture. So interpolating your statement, since there was no 'Bible' there could not have been any Christians. The Church defined and taught Christianity as commanded by Jesus himself. THAT is sacred tradition. Oh and the early Church was most assuredly 'Catholic.' And many will still be in the end. Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 9:20:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think that argument holds much water historically or from a linguistic stand point. What particular theological axe is being ground by believing the rock upon which the church is founded is Peter rather than who Peter says? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 12:07:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They all are basing their analysis on the hopes of a word play with the word rock (i.e. confessing that two different words for rock are in view). However, if you actually read your bible you discover that Christ is the cornerstone upon which the church is built and the other believers are stones in the church (as Peter explains in 1 Peter 2 by quoting Isaiah 8 and 28 and Psalm 118). What particular theological axe is being ground by believing the rock upon which the church is founded is Peter rather than who Peter says? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't think that argument holds much water historically or from a linguistic stand point. What particular theological axe is being ground by believing the rock upon which the church is founded is Peter rather than who Peter says? I do rejoice that you follow Jesus. I just pray one day, that our pride is subplanted with humility and we all can come back together. I will continue to post for other who actually read threads. Even if they do not post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 9:47:32 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who's been both a Protestant and a Catholic I ask the question "Why do you need to be either/or?" Why don't you just be a Christian and follow what the Bible says? (Matt. 15:9, 1 Cor. 1:10-13, Rev. 18:4) Secondarily, we know that the Bible doesn't contain everything that Jesus taught or did. Finally, no where did Jesus either command the writing of a document, and Jesus himself wrote nothing to the best of the Ancient Church's knowledge. Jesus DID however tell us to go forth to all the Nations and teach them EVERYTHING I've commanded you. Jesus did command a number of other Sacrament events, as well. To me, its hard to read the Bible and not see the above to be pretty emphatically true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 10:05:48 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They all are basing their analysis on the hopes of a word play with the word rock (i.e. confessing that two different words for rock are in view). However, if you actually read your bible you discover that Christ is the cornerstone upon which the church is built and the other believers are stones in the church (as Peter explains in 1 Peter 2 by quoting Isaiah 8 and 28 and Psalm 118). What particular theological axe is being ground by believing the rock upon which the church is founded is Peter rather than who Peter says? 
Amazing that the Church's translation and interpretation has been consistent for some 1800 years or more, but your novel interpretation is the ONLY correct one. Why is your interpretation valid, but there's is not? When I read these verses, I come to the same conclusion as the Church. Why is my personal interpretation, which happens to parallel that of the Church, invalid, but YOUR personal interpretation is valid? And the list of cited scholar's that posted. Their interpretations are wrong, but YOURS is right? Do you have similar credentials? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 11:55:28 AM EDT
[#18]
I'm sure that the Orthodox Church has a few things to say about this upstart "Roman Catholic" church with which it warred several times over the centuries since 1054.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 2:03:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of stuff you can add to that.....Trinity, bodily assumption of Mary, Transsubstantiation, Pope, Hail Mary, Bible...etc.. Just because the word isn't there doesn't mean the concept isn't. That's not a dig at the RCC. That's just saying being consistent, those have to be listed too. I see ALOT in the list that you posted that I agree with you on 100%. Others that I don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NOT found in the Bible, and most certainly NOT Catholic phrases Age of Accountability Total Depravity of Man Personal Lord and Saviour Ask Jesus into your Heart The Rapture Invisible Church Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head “Personal Relationship with Christ” Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior Enthroning the Bible in your Heart “Covered with the righteousness of Christ” Limited Atonement Imputed righteousness Altar Call Dedication; Rededication “Giving your Life to the Lord” Revival Inerrancy Eternal Security “Once saved, always saved” Just because the word isn't there doesn't mean the concept isn't. That's not a dig at the RCC. That's just saying being consistent, those have to be listed too. I see ALOT in the list that you posted that I agree with you on 100%. Others that I don't. B. We aren't the ones that are all "Sola scriptura!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 3:12:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. A lot of that is in the Bible, implicitly or explicitly. B. We aren't the ones that are all "Sola scriptura!" As for B. Let me ask you a question. If you were an unbeliever alone stranded on an island with only a Bible, do you think that you could read it, and become a believer and be saved? Without any Priest, pastor, seminary class etc? If so, then scripture alone was enough. Again, I don't believe that traditions are bad. They are very beneficial in many ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 3:15:35 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As for B. Let me ask you a question. If you were an unbeliever alone stranded on an island with only a Bible, do you think that you could read it, and become a believer and be saved? Without any Priest, pastor, seminary class etc? If so, then scripture alone was enough. Again, I don't believe that traditions are bad. They are very beneficial in many ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 3:26:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Books doesn't save people. God's Grace saves people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 4:22:00 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We aren't the ones that are all "Sola scriptura!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 4:25:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can honestly say that I've never heard anyone, other than Catholics, use that term. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We aren't the ones that are all "Sola scriptura!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 4:43:35 PM EDT
[#25]
A lot of people try to find the "right" flavor of Christianity.
Once you receive the Holy Spirit you get to talk directly to dad. He loves your ass and he is just trying to send you down the right path. Listen. This is coming from a 60 year old goat that has been blessed way more than he deserves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 4:48:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Not sure that anywhere in the Bible (re: why don't you just read the Bible? and others) does it say that scripture is sufficient. In fact, in all places that the word 'scripture' is used, it refers to the old testament.
As for the desert island query, I give you from the Catechism 847 This affirmation (on achieving salvation) is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Lumen Gentium 16; cf. DS 3866-3872). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 4:51:16 PM EDT
[#27]
There's just one problem with everything is 100% literal:
You also must believe that in the future, people will be fighting on horseback, using armor, swords, buckler shields, etc. And fighting in such a manner that would be vaporized by a modern force's CAS and artillery in a matter of mere minutes with zero casualties. And yet somehow the swordguys will be the winning side. If that was literal, we must be in for something that makes the Mad Max universe look like a sugarcookie, because even Mad Max raiders would smash that to bits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 5:48:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure that anywhere in the Bible (re: why don't you just read the Bible? and others) does it say that scripture is sufficient. In fact, in all places that the word 'scripture' is used, it refers to the old testament. As for the desert island query, I give you from the Catechism 847 This affirmation (on achieving salvation) is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Lumen Gentium 16; cf. DS 3866-3872). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 6:10:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Primarily because "what the Bible says" is a tremendously difficult and immensely time consuming question. The idea of jettisoning 2000 years of analysis by some of the most learned people in history seems to be a Gnostic attitude. Then there is problem of taking that history and analysis and making into something useful in daily life. Secondarily, we know that the Bible doesn't contain everything that Jesus taught or did. Finally, no where did Jesus either command the writing of a document, and Jesus himself wrote nothing to the best of the Ancient Church's knowledge. Jesus DID however tell us to go forth to all the Nations and teach them EVERYTHING I've commanded you. Jesus did command a number of other Sacrament events, as well. To me, its hard to read the Bible and not see the above to be pretty emphatically true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 8:54:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bible is the ONLY Word of God that we have. You cannot add to it or delete anything from it. There are no other teachings from Christ for us to go out and tell the world like he commanded us. The Pentecost happened so that God cold continue instructing us on his Word (to be written down). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 9:00:02 PM EDT
[#31]
1 Cor 10:16 - "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 9:01:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for your direct response. Not to start a catechism war, but because I am curious. If a Muslim, never meets missionaries and never hears the Gospel, and worships Allah and follows Islam, is he saved because he thinks he is correct? I know this is a matter of discussion in the RCC. What is your view? I think it is possible, but very difficult and incredibly unlikely. In the passage from the catechism (and other passages surrounding the one I posted), the implication is that a being is led by God to love and charity. Many tenets of Islam appear to be in opposition to those traits. Not the least of which is the master-slave relationship between muslims and their god, but extending to the treatment of children and women, dihimmitude, etc. You get the picture. I don't think that those behaviors are reflective of a 'saved' individual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 9:19:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bible is the ONLY Word of God that we have. You cannot add to it or delete anything from it. There are no other teachings from Christ for us to go out and tell the world like he commanded us. The Pentecost happened so that God cold continue instructing us on his Word (to be written down). Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. 1 Cor 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2017 10:07:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's, uh....novel. The deposit of faith was both oral and written. Since there was no Bible for the first 4 centuries of Christianity and the literacy rate was 10% at best during that time of history, how do you suppose that instruction was given? Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. 1 Cor 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2017 4:19:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not playing that game. You want to find "lost" books of the bible and make a case that Jesus could have done this or said that, go ahead and have fun with that. I'm fully aware of those verses and I'm also aware of Rev. 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6, Galatians 1:6-9 and Matthew 24:24. I don't know what 'lost books' you are talking about. Catholicism has never 'lost a book' - unlike the progeny of Luther et al. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2017 9:49:37 PM EDT
[#36]
As a further scriptural reference to oral tradition I offer the following passages:
Acts 20:35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” Nowhere in the Gospel accounts does Jesus utter this phrase. That being the case, how is presented as an authentic saying if there was no oral tradition? Jude 1:17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” Likewise nowhere does Jesus or the apostles relate this phrase in the Gospels or in Acts. So how was that phrase passed into the epistles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2017 10:04:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not playing a game. Answering a question with scripture. For some reason the oft cited 'simple truth of scripture' is no longer simple or truthful when it clearly confirms Catholic thought. Imagine that... I don't know what 'lost books' you are talking about. Catholicism has never 'lost a book' - unlike the progeny of Luther et al. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2017 10:23:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course... I've never read those verses beforehttps://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_freak.gif Amazing that the Church's translation and interpretation has been consistent for some 1800 years or more, but your novel interpretation is the ONLY correct one. Why is your interpretation valid, but there's is not? When I read these verses, I come to the same conclusion as the Church. Why is my personal interpretation, which happens to parallel that of the Church, invalid, but YOUR personal interpretation is valid? And the list of cited scholar's that posted. Their interpretations are wrong, but YOURS is right? Do you have similar credentials? 1. Because it is the same as Peter's. 2. Because it agrees with Peter's. 3. Because it is Peter's understanding of who the rock is. 4. Because Peter's understanding of who the rock is bears more weight than the scholars. 5. No. Suggesting my understanding is "novel" is a bit farcical on your part, as even your scholars acknowledge that a similar understanding has been around a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2017 12:26:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You asked 4 questions, but did answer mine. The answers to your questions are: 1. Because it is the same as Peter's. 2. Because it agrees with Peter's. 3. Because it is Peter's understanding of who the rock is. 4. Because Peter's understanding of who the rock is bears more weight than the scholars. 5. No. Suggesting my understanding is "novel" is a bit farcical on your part, as even your scholars acknowledge that a similar understanding has been around a while. Number 5 is the only one of your answers that I can concur with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2017 1:00:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is so important about Catholic or Protestant thought? My original point was that both Catholics and Protestants are making this way harder than what it needs to be. Everything you need to know is in the Bible. No tradition, service or whatever is more important than that. Whether you baptize a person at birth or after they are old enough to confess their sins and repent, shouldn't matter. Salvation comes from repentance directly to Jesus Christ and turning away from your sins and keeping his commandments. Too much "Church stuff" going on and not enough of "God stuff" going on in this world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2017 2:18:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your interpretation is 'novel' in that Peter as the Rock has been the consistent interpretation of the Church since the beginning, but your interpretation is a mere 500 years old. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ himself names Peter as the Rock and gives him the power of loosing and binding as well as the keys to the kingdom (Isaiah 22:20-24). Jesus did not say 'I am the Rock.' So, in a traditional protestant prooftexting style I ask...do you believe Jesus or Peter? Its a conundrum, I know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your interpretation is 'novel' in that Peter as the Rock has been the consistent interpretation of the Church since the beginning, but your interpretation is a mere 500 years old. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ himself names Peter as the Rock and gives him the power of loosing and binding as well as the keys to the kingdom (Isaiah 22:20-24). Jesus did not say 'I am the Rock.' So, in a traditional protestant prooftexting style I ask...do you believe Jesus or Peter? Its a conundrum, I know.
Yes, Peter received the keys to the kingdom as 1 Peter and Matthew 16 speak about. However, the keys of David spoken of in Isaiah 22:20-24 belong to Christ (see Rev 3:7) not Peter, and Christ is also the sure peg (Zech 10:4) not Peter. The prophecy to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-24 was fulfilled in Isaiah 36:3, i.e. he and Shebna switched roles. This is a prophetic type of Christ and his relationship with Israel. Quoted:
Number 5 is the only one of your answers that I can concur with. But my question remains, what particular axe is being ground by saying Peter is the rock versus Jesus being the rock? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2017 6:28:49 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But my question remains, what particular axe is being ground by saying Peter is the rock versus Jesus being the rock? Quote HistoryQuoted:
But my question remains, what particular axe is being ground by saying Peter is the rock versus Jesus being the rock? 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.
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. I'd be interested to see how in light of the above passage, one could argue against Peter's authority as the basis of the Church, and Peter as the first demonstrated hierarchical leader of that Church. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2017 7:18:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess I'm missing the thrust of your question, but these verses clearly state that A) Jesus made "his" Church (singular) B) Granted it his protection and C) Placed Peter in charge with appropriate authority from God itself. I'd be interested to see how in light of the above passage, one could argue against Peter's authority as the basis of the Church, and Peter as the first demonstrated hierarchical leader of that Church. In the passage, there is alot more to the conversation than the verse cited. The object that the word "this" is referencing as the rock is the source of disagreement. Peter had just made a deep insight into who and what Christ is. Peter understood a truth that Christ tried multiple times to convince the religious leadership of Judah to accept. Once Christ ascended and the apostles began preaching, they picked up Christ's argument and continued preaching that very same insight and used the very same passages that Christ used (Psalm 110 and others). I contend (along with others) that this truth is the rock, while you (along with others) apparently believe Peter is the rock. My question is this: Setting the disagreement aside, and presuming you are correct, then what is the conclusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2017 7:36:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jesus made his church (we agree), granted his protection (we agree), and founded it on a rock (we differ). In the passage, there is alot more to the conversation than the verse cited. The object that the word "this" is referencing as the rock is the source of disagreement. Peter had just made a deep insight into who and what Christ is. Peter understood a truth that Christ tried multiple times to convince the religious leadership of Judah to accept. Once Christ ascended and the apostles began preaching, they picked up Christ's argument and continued preaching that very same insight and used the very same passages that Christ used (Psalm 110 and others). I contend (along with others) that this truth is the rock, while you (along with others) apparently believe Peter is the rock. My question is this: Setting the disagreement aside, and presuming you are correct, then what is the conclusion? I guess I'm missing the import of the argument you suggest. If we both agree a church was formed with ties to the Old Testament, than things don't significantly change. Simon was renamed to Kepha (Aramaic for rock), made major domo to the Kingdom of Heaven, and both he and Jesus would have understood that especially in the presence of the Twelve, this authority would have represented Peter's prima inter pares position among the Twelve. Moreover, the context of the speech is "Blessed art you, Simon Bar-Jona," indicative of a two way conversation. For the point of your argument, the conclusion, its that the Church was left behind as a mechanism for the direct authority to do as we are instructed by God. Namely, to go forth and teach them everything I've commanded to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2017 8:43:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess I'm missing the import of the argument you suggest. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess I'm missing the import of the argument you suggest. If my understanding is correct, then Peter's observation is a timeless truth that is readily applicable. Simply Google up some statements of faith, read them carefully, and apply the test. If you don't hold my understanding, then it doesn't hold the same import to you. Quoted:
If we both agree a church was formed with ties to the Old Testament, than things don't significantly change. Simon was renamed to Kepha (Aramaic for rock), made major domo to the Kingdom of Heaven, and both he and Jesus would have understood that especially in the presence of the Twelve, this authority would have represented Peter's prima inter pares position among the Twelve. Moreover, the context of the speech is "Blessed art you, Simon Bar-Jona," indicative of a two way conversation. That being said, after Christ ascended Peter certainly was first among the apostles until Paul (if Paul is understood to be an apostle in the same manner). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2017 8:11:51 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The import is: If a church doesn't hold that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God, but rather the church preeminently holds that Jesus is something or someone else, then the rock that church is built on is the wrong one. If my understanding is correct, then Peter's observation is a timeless truth that is readily applicable. Simply Google up some statements of faith, read them carefully, and apply the test. If you don't hold my understanding, then it doesn't hold the same import to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The import is: If a church doesn't hold that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God, but rather the church preeminently holds that Jesus is something or someone else, then the rock that church is built on is the wrong one. If my understanding is correct, then Peter's observation is a timeless truth that is readily applicable. Simply Google up some statements of faith, read them carefully, and apply the test. If you don't hold my understanding, then it doesn't hold the same import to you. If in chapter 16 Christ rules Peter is first among equals, then it fell on deaf ears as Matthew 18:1-5 indicates that the apostles didn't know, and similarly the sons of Zebedee failed to inform their mother in Matthew 20:20-28 where Jesus seems to deny that he has the authority to make such a ruling.
That being said, after Christ ascended Peter certainly was first among the apostles until Paul (if Paul is understood to be an apostle in the same manner). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2017 5:49:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2017 6:07:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I and others have pointed out, with scripture, that the "Flesh" profits nothing. The taking of bread and wine reminds you of the sacrifice. A serious thing as you say. Not to be taken lightly. You can take it literally, I take it symbolically. An outward sign of a spiritual commitment. |
|
|
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.
