Posted on 05/29/2019 12:37:41 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ Peterson said, “I think that Catholicism — that's as sane as people can get.”
Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.
He explained, “Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?”
“To believe, in a Christian sense,” he added, “means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.”
Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:
“To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.”
See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.
Already told you.
Not my fault you refused to read it.
Stop spamming me.
Godwin’s Law.
You just forfeited the debate.
Get over yourself.
Ignore him.
He’s looking for a fight and his recently deleted post proved it.
Anyone who throws out bait and then flails away at strawmen they create has got more than a few issues and is not presenting any good case to convince anyone there’s a good reason to seriously consider Catholicism.
Agree.
Good point, good point.
Of course you don't want to go down that road, since the earliest Christians agreed with Catholic theology.
You'd rather discuss what the protestant "reformers" said about all these issues, since they agree with your own beliefs.
Obviously the people who lived 1600 years AFTER Jesus understood the bible MUCH better than the people who talked to the apostles themselves, right?
Man, it sucked we were interpreting it all wrong for the first 3/4rds of Christianity's existence.
Of course you don't want to go down that road, since the earliest Christians agreed with Catholic theology.
You've already shown your lack of knowledge on the canon.
Bring on whatever you may have.
Playground rules...put up or hush up.
I can pull 30 quotes right now that tell us that early Christians and even the people Catholics venerate as saints are NOT in agreement with Catholic theology, especially as regards salvation
Would you be willing to read?
That's a rather odd question, since we all, in a way, put Jesus on that cross. So in that sense, we all "participated" in the crucifixion 2,000 years ago. But to answer your question more directly, and to the heart of your question, where "we" (Catholics) get that we can and do participate in the one sacrifice is from the same article I linked to before. Let me restate, just using my own words but not saying anything new or different than what I posted before:
Jesus was and is a high priest, who holds his office forever. (Heb 7:23-24)
High priests must offer sacrifices, to be high priests (Heb 8:3)
Jesus is eternally interceding for us in front of the Father (Heb 9:24) (note, you didn't even address this key verse in your reply to me)
Jesus isn't "re-sacrificing" himself, (Heb 9:25) therefore we aren't either, when we participate in that same one sacrifice.
Conclusion: Jesus is a high preist, high priests offer sacrifices, Jesus is interceding for us even now in front of the Father, therefore since he is a high priest, who must offer sacrifices to be priests, and interceding for us, ipso facto, He must be offering a continual sacrifice to the Father, and what is this sacrifice He must be offering? It's His one sacrifice described in Heb 10:10. Because again, he isn't re-sacrificing Himself, we know that.
It can't be this "new covenant" you seem to claim, because a "covenant" is not, by definition, a "sacrifice". It is often ratified *by* a sacrifice, but is itself not a sacrifice.
Therefore, He must be offering his one complete and infinitely holy sacrifice, before the Father. And again, must be doing so continually because He is interceding for us continually.
So that's where we "get" that we can participate in His one sacrifice, at least in an eternal sense because His sacrifice is eternal (in Heaven, where Jesus is offering His one sacrifice to the Father, there is no time). It's not "once and done" it's "once for all", meaning one sacrifice for all people. Not all people accept the gift of His grace in His sacrifice of course, that's why not all are saved, but my point here is that Heb 10:10 isn't saying "once and done", the word "done" does not appear in that verse.
It's "once for all". It's you, and others, who read into the text and insist that phrase must mean "once and done", as in one time in time, but it was once in time, but an eternal sacrifice, otherwise He would have nothing to offer the Father when He intercedes for us in eternity. The fact that later, in Heb 10:12 it says He now "[sits] down at the right hand of God..." is not relevant to this point because He both clearly "sits at the right hand of God" (10:12) but also "appears in the presence of God on our behalf" (9:24). So He's doing both things, at His Father's right hand waiting for His enemies to be put under His feet, but also appears on our behalf continually before the Father, even now. (Heb 10:14) He's God, he can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Of course, there's the factor of "transubstantiation" to consider in this question of yours, because that is the other part of how we can participate in it now, but I'm not even going there, because I'm tired already.
The last word is yours; I'm not going to respond not for lack of an answer to anything else you may ask or say, but because there is nothing left to be said on this point, for those with eyes to see.
No. Those are grave sins — either omission or commission, or both, damnable sins -— but these acts are not teachings. They are not teaching that it’s all right.
“but these acts are not teachings”
These actions speak louder than words.
The message comes across loud and clear:
“No matter the church position, we accept and welcome homosexuals in the priesthood and in the Vatican.”
Godwin’s Law.
............................
Right, I should have referred to Luther instead.
Tat one comes across as a Catholic retread who also play the flame game V something, IMS.
My point was only that a teacher can be morally corrupt and still, "as teacher," teach the truth.,
A math teacher might be a pervert, an aggressor and a multiple unrepentant felon, but still be a brilliant math teacher.
But the minute he start saying stuff like "2 + 2 = 5", he ceases being a math teacher.
It's much worse for teachers of religious and moral truth, but you get my point.
I was just thinking, Franky Schaeffer wrote a lot of ugly stuff "exposing" his father, Francis Schaeffer, of all kinds of sins and hypocrisies. I don't have any idea whether it's true or not. I sure hope not. But whether it's true, half-true, a little bit true or an outright lie, Francis Schaeffer was still a great Evangelical teacher.
I'm not an evangelical, but as far as I know, Francis Schaeffer did not teach what, from an Evangelical Christian point of view, would be classified as heresy.
So we crucified Jesus...And you Catholics get to participate in that continual crucifixion of Jesus on a daily basis...
Sorry, count me out...
High priests must offer sacrifices, to be high priests (Heb 8:3)
That is not what the verse says...
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
The highest priest will have somewhat to offer...But not the same types of gifts and sacrifices as the Pharisees and Catholics offer...
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Jesus is eternally interceding for us in front of the Father (Heb 9:24) (note, you didn't even address this key verse in your reply to me)
That's because intercession has nothing to do with a sacrifice or crucifixion...
It can't be this "new covenant" you seem to claim, because a "covenant" is not, by definition, a "sacrifice". It is often ratified *by* a sacrifice, but is itself not a sacrifice.
No, but it can be a gift...Grace is a gift...And you just read that earthy priests give gifts according to the law...That doesn't apply to Jesus...
Therefore, He must be offering his one complete and infinitely holy sacrifice, before the Father. And again, must be doing so continually because He is interceding for us continually.
Must be??? No, it must NOT be since one has nothing to do with the other...
So that's where we "get" that we can participate in His one sacrifice, at least in an eternal sense because His sacrifice is eternal (in Heaven, where Jesus is offering His one sacrifice to the Father, there is no time). It's not "once and done" it's "once for all", meaning one sacrifice for all people
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For all people...
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Once and done...One sacrifice, one time, forever...
It's not ongoing...It is finished...He is no longer on the cross for perpetuity...Jesus didn't intercede from the Cross...He sat down at the right hand of God...
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
You guys keep losing your sanctification??? We don't...You weren't perfected forever after one Mass???
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
'Once and done'...
remission:
af'-es-is
From G863; freedom; (figuratively) pardon: - deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission.
Think about it...If you guys have to continuously participate in the ongoing crucifixion, that it never ended, you have never been pardoned, delivered or forgiven...It's in the works...It's ongoing...Of course maybe you knew that...
That is the bondage your religion has you under... But for the rest of us, there is no more offering for sin...
They sure have!
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
Once for all. Not continually. Intercession is a separate issue.
From Dr. DeHaan...
The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute. He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament. Hebrews 9:12 is very definite on this:Also from Hebrews..."But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Hebrews 9"Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Best.
(I have a well-worn dictionary at my fingertips all the tymmne!)
Black people are just like white people. Sometimes they make spelling mistakes.
It sounds racist to criticize them though...
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.
