Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
No, it's an insulting question. It is predicated on the belief that Catholics don't regard the Bible as the Greatest Book Ever Written.
If I asked you, with all seriousness, if you would rather, if you could have only one, give up your horse or Mack, would you find it insulting?
What if I asked Mack if he would rather have his remote control or you? If I was asking in all seriousness and had no idea of what your answer would be.
SD
SD
Glad to hear this Dave.
If I asked you, with all seriousness, if you would rather, if you could have only one, give up your horse or Mack, would you find it insulting?
Actually being asked this by someone who knows Mack would not surprise me:) I could see where a question might arise.
Becky
The better (almpst [arallel) example would be: "If you bible Christians could only chose one source for God's word would you chose:
A: The Bible
B: Jesus Christ
c: Some other - please elaborate."
Yes, I do, if by a shepherd you mean the church hierarchy.
Since Christ is the only Shepherd, then Peter and the apostles were hirelings This whole scenario of yours is little more then puffy clouds and foamy water.
John 10:11-15 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Now, where does it say Peter was the shepherd? I really wonder if those in the RC Hierarchy have ever cracked opened the Bible?
Find me a scripture where Christ said they were to be shepherds, or one of the apostles claimed to be the shepherd of the sheep.
Yes. You seem to have a problem with that. Many people, flattered with their own intellect, bristle at the idea of actually following a leader. This is understandable, and a great reason why the "Reformation" has been as popular as it has.
If my intellect were a factor, I’d quit, but you are half right, we are to follow our leader, but your human leaders are not those whom were to follow, and place our salvation in their human hands.
Christ is my leader, and I’ll answer to Him, and not to man, it’ll be you who has to explain why the things you believe are contrary to the written word that God left us.
The only problem is that Scripture clearly shows Christ instructing Peter to lead His sheep.
I’ll patiently wait for you to post the scripture please, where feeding sheep make someone a shepherd.
Can you think of any reasons why Christ felt it was necessary to remind Peter that he was to get busy?
JH
B: Jesus Christ
c: Some other - please elaborate."
I know you had a few typos but I think I know what you mean.
The Bible is God's word.
We are talking about written word. Which do you equate to God:
A: The Bible.
B: The Catechism.
C: Some other - please elaborate."
Now, cut it out. Your's is not the "spin" game. Leave it to the experts. Spin experts, that is.
It's really a simple matter. God speaks to mankind in an infallible way.
When God speaks directly (whether it is recorded in Scripture or not) it is an infallible utterance and must be belived/obeyed.
When God spoke (or speaks) through a prophet, it is still God who is speaking, it is still infallible and it must still be believed. An OT King who said to his prophet "I know that you say that God wants us to kill those people over there... but right here in the written word it says "thou shalt not kill" so I won't do it... I'm resting on Scripture" would quickly find out (the hard way) that it was his own interpretation of Scripture" that was the problem and that, in fact, there was no conflict.
When God spoke through the Apostles (whether recorded in Scripture or not) it was still an infallible utterance and must be (have been) belived/obeyed.
When God spoke (and still speaks in a different way) through the authors of Scripture by the written Word, it is still an infallible utterance (in a much more verifiable way, but not uniquely so) and must be believed obeyed.
When God speaks through His Church (at least for most Christians), it is still an infallible utterance and must be believed/obeyed.
You see no conflict in my example because Jesus gives "God's Word" and the Bible is God's Word. They are not really separate. But the Catholic accepts that God's didn't stop talking 1700 years ago. And the source is the same. Choosing between Scripture and the Cathecism is a false choice because the source of both is God. The Scriptures are (and must always be) in the preeminent position, but "preeminent" still accepts that there are situations like the OT King where our interpretation of Scripture could be in conflict with the Truth. And forcing Dave to chose one over the other (even if he believes the Bible is in position one) is a false choice.
I don't get it. Are the fish barfing?
That's they way it oughta be, too! ;o)
Unfortunately, though, all I have is a couple of shotguns and they're at my dad's house. Haven't had need of them over the years, but maybe one day I'll take up dove hunting again. Then I'll have an excuse to get them back. In the mean time, I do have a copy of the Application to Date My Daughter. Need a copy, angelo?
Y'know them x and y thingies? They get passed down from us to them. That determines the gender.
Jesus is God's final word. What more needs to be said?
Dave, I remember reading some years ago (I think it may have been in Catholic Answer's This Rock magazine) a Catholic author say that, given this precise circumstance, he would choose the catechism. His reasoning was that the Catechism quotes a great deal of scripture, and that Catholicism could more easily be reconstituted from the catechism than directly from scripture. Obviously this was only his personal opinion, but it does lend some validity to Reggie's question.
What if I asked Mack if he would rather have his remote control or you?
Not a fair question, Dave. Without Becky, Mack wouldn't know how to operate the remote control. ;o)
Lure. Bait. ;o)
No application necessary, as she will not be allowed to date. I will permit gentlemen to court her when she is a mature adult ready for marriage.
Well, that's the way it would be if my opinion counted for anything. ;o)
Actually, the yr. she turned 17 is the first time we let her go to a 3 day weekend Rodeo we have in this area by herself. Well her older brother went. But that was the first year I didn't go. I figured if she hadn't learned to behave by then we were out of luck. They have this rodeo in the middle of July in the hottest part of summer. We took the kids for yrs. and a few yrs. me and her went together. You camp out at the rodeo grounds. It can get pretty wild.
Anyway she went by herself for the first time at 17, met the first boy there that she dated and married him 2 yrs later. Go figure. I guess this stuff happens. Luckily Mack never had to use his pond. Travis is a great guy:)
Becky
She is hoping this will brain wash them:>)
True. But non responsive. That Word was spoken in the beginning, long before any of Scripture was penned. In human terms (and human time) did God stop talking 1700-2000 years ago?
Has prophesy ceased (not a trick question, many believe it has), or tongues. Does He not answer individual prayers anymore (in a direct way)?
And just who was it who taught you this great truth? Did you sit down one day with your Bible and prayerfully read what it said and come to this conclusion by the written word?
Or by chance could it have been the ones who wanted to convince you they had this infallible utterance you were to obey that gave you this truth?
Paul was the last apostle besides John who God spoke to. There has been no one since them. If they didn’t say it, then you have no idea what God wanted if it’s not in the scripture.
John said, 1 John 2: 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
If we have the anointing in us, the Holy Spirit, we are capable of teaching our selves, and we need no man to teach us.
Paul said, Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul who was to the early church speaking for God, told us that when a man taught anything that couldn’t be directly tied to Paul’s teachings, then that man should be accursed, and then he repeated to make sure you took it seriously.
Now tell me again how the RCC has come up with all their teachings that by no stretch of the imagination connected to any thing Paul ever taught, and still make the claim they follow scripture.
The Scriptures are (and must always be) in the preeminent position, but "preeminent" still accepts that there are situations like the OT King where our interpretation of Scripture could be in conflict with the Truth.
The story you related is not in the most popular Bible in the world, so why spend this time on a hypotheticals that did not, or could not ever happen? If it had happened it would be the fault of the king who did not know God or his prophet.
If a traffic patrolman is directing traffic out of a parking lot, and the light is red, and he continues sending out cars while holding the traffic back who has the green light, he takes authority over the mechanical light because he is a live person who wears a badge or a uniform that identifies him as a true represenative of the law.
But, if some guy is out there wearing dirty jeans and a tee shirt with a 5 day growth of beard, and no patrol car present or any form of ID, then you had better not run the light, because both of you will be held accountable if there is an accident.
You can tell the judge that you saw the light was red, but this guy seemed to have authority, so I pulled right out into on coming traffic, it’s not my fault judge, I trusted that man.
JH
Hmmmmm... there is a detention pond about 100 yards to the northwest of our house. Thanks for the suggestion! ;o)
Another excellent suggestion. I could record it and play it subliminally when they sleep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.