The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 160

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

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

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

Thread 151	Thread 152	Thread 153	Thread 154	Thread 155	Thread 156	Thread 157
Thread 158

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 159

[Pelayo]

Havoc: but, to make a point that I made before or was trying to make. Jesus came to be a man and to excercise his authority only as it aligned with the Father's Will. If he had acted fully in divinity, he could have come down off the cross and called upon legions of Angels to his aid.

SoothingDave: How would that have been acting "fully in divinity"? It would have been exercising the powers of the Divine, but would have totally blew the one chance for repairing the infinite rift.

We should also consider wether giving up His divinity would have still made the act worth wild. If Jesus was not God, what was the effect of the Cross? plenty of normal mortals have died in similar instances, how did Jesus help if he was just one of them?

[SoothingDave]

My challenge was to point out that Catholics cling to the belief that their Tradition = Oral tradition of the 1st century. Whenever they are challenged on the foundation of their belief, they say Tradition and claim validity for the tradition on the basis that it equals the Oral tradition of the 1st century believers. But, curiously, we have not one bit of the oral tradition preserved. If it was that important to the church, we should expect to have at least some of it preserved in its original form. Further we should expect to see a fully developed Tradition in the earliest writings of the church in regards to the Pope, primacy of Peter, etc. And yet we do not.

I don't think you understand what "fully developed" means. I know you said that oral tradition can be written down, but you discount that as well. The belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was early oral tradition, that quickly became written tradition, that developed into dogma.

We would not expect a fully developed theory of the papacy in the first century. Only the notion of the leadership of Peter and the primacy of his See.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If the Catholic Church was to be the only Church, you failed miserably, because you have never allowed for any personalities except that of followers.

The apostles were as diverse as men could get, and that is why Christ choose them, to represent us, the world of personalities, it is as someone said earlier, we are Baskin Robbins with 49 flavors, and you are the Church of Vanilla, and one size fits all, or else.

What do you think Paul was telling us when he talked about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 12, Besides these many different gifts, the Gospel mentions over 200 gifts as fruits of the Holy Spirit from prophesy to wisdom, knowledge, judging, searching all things, teaching, comparing spiritual to spiritual, faith, the working of miracles, healing, tongues, edifying, and on and on, are you saying that God meant for only you to have all these gifts? There is no place in your Church for someone who Christ had given these gifts to.

Wow. You are really and truly stretching here and putting on a wonderful display of your ignorance. There's no place in the Church for people given the gifts of wisdom, faith, miracles, healing, tongues, prophesy?

You simply do not know anything about the members of the Church.

Nothing.

Try the most rudimentary "lives of the saints" book before speaking on the subject again.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Yea! I agree with a catholic totally! You worded this plainly and sensibly.

I have my moments. :-)

Again, nobody asked me (sniff sniff), but I believe Jesus was, is, and forever shall be Lord and God. At his incarnation, he was fully God and fully man....only He could be both. He "used" His diety at certain times, doing things that no human being could do, but when He was tempted, he didn't rely on his deity for victory. I believe He relied on His Father and the Word, as an example for us when we are tested. As God, he allowed himself to be worshipped; if he were ONLY man, I don't think He would have allowed that. What do y'all think?

I think I agree with you here. Jesus used His Divinity at certain times but not at others. That is the only solution I can come up with. And for future reference, feel free to answer any question anyone asks. Especially if you see me repaeting the same question to several people.

SD

[SoothingDave]

We should also consider wether giving up His divinity would have still made the act worth while. If Jesus was not God, what was the effect of the Cross? plenty of normal mortals have died in similar instances, how did Jesus help if he was just one of them?

Exactly. At the end of post 7, I said

The obedience of one man, even unto death, is not sufficient to wipe out the infinite release of sin into the world. God (the infinite) needs to sacrifice Himself (the infinite) in order to right the scales. Infinite injustice requires infinite repayment.

SD

[SoothingDave]

It seems that Havoc has agreed with me on Jesus being true God and true man. Now let's go to the last thread and see where my confusion came from and why I had doubted him. It all began with a simple question, a question which many many other people here have had no problem recognizing as one which can be satisfied with an affirmative or negative response. And furthermore, one which most Christians do not hesitate to answer affirmatively in an unequvocal manner.

Havoc, was/is Jesus God?

This was the response:

Jesus is the Son of God. Born of flesh he was human with all the temptations we have - The Son of God in the flesh proved that we could overcome because He did. Do you have some problem with that statement? He submitted to the Will of the Father and made it through. And that's what each of us is supposed to be doing.

Instead of a yes or no, I am told that Jesus is the Son of God (Which I admit has implications to those who think like me normally. A class of people which does not include Havoc.) and a tirade is started about how Jesus is of the "Flesh" and how he was human.

Not wanting to take this as a negative answer, but honestly confused about what exactly the answer meant, I asked for clarification.

If someone asks me "Is Jesus God?" I say "Yes" unequivocably. Your answer sounds like a "no." If I am reading that wrong then correct me.

This was answered with:

What part of "Son of God" do you not understand? Last time I looked, that is a term that is quite well explained and understood in the Bible. If you want to be sensational, Dave, try having a valid point to make.

And

Actually, no you didn't ask for a simple declaration. You asked a question and I answered it directly and completely.

Now I ask all of you, shouldn't Havoc realize that I know nothing about the Bible? Why would he expect me to understand a complicated Bible term like "Son of God" and assign the same meaning to it that he does? And as for completely and directly answering my question, most people manage to say "yes" or "no" to such a direct query. This is the source of my confusion.

I am sorry if I caused Havoc any grief. I just don't understand the reluctance to answer me directly, especially now that I know that we believe the same thing.

SD

[al_c]

Dave ... is the sky blue ... yes or no? ;o)

[OLD REGGIE]

What would you bet that if he simply made a logical decision as to what Church he would go to, it would be Catholic.

He admires the pope, especially their stand on abortion and their no bend policies. I have heard him on this subject many times.

------------------------------------------------------------

That's funny, I also admire the Pope, I especially admire his stand on abortion and the death penalty. I also admire many of the "no-bend" policies of the RCC.

Having said that, the last Church I would go to is the RCC.

[the808bass]

Bass, do you think it's possible that the Didache represents some of the "lost" oral tradition? It certainly reads as such to me.

That's a good call. I'm not sure the Catholics are rushing to claim that, though.

[the808bass]

Then, I take it, you don't believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity?

Huh?

[the808bass]

I know you said that oral tradition can be written down, but you discount that as well.

I didn't discount it. I just said that it ain't written tradition. Further, where is it? You say, "It's right there." I say, "Where?" You say, "In the beginning." I say, "I still don't see it." You say, "It's Tradition." I say, "How do we know?" You say, "Cause we said so."

What is the first mention of Mary's perpetual virginity in the writings of the Church (and I mean explicit, not that kecharitomene stuff)?

[JHavard]

So God didn't know the results? What port of All seeing, All knowing, Ever-present don't you get?

Do you not think that God can be a sport and bypass his all knowing and ever present self.

I think there are ample proofs where God hid his eyes to the final outcome, such as Adam's sin, mankind having to be destroyed in the flood, Israel sinning and not being permitted into the promise land, Abraham offering his son, and Jacob wrestling with a man (probably God) until the breaking of day, do you think God does everything knowing the results, does God ever live in the present, or does he only know that which he wants to know?

I think he can do either, otherwise his existence is just a script acted out, and that would be boring even for God.

So... we've herd it before from other people and their "private studies", it was blasphemous then and it's blasphemous now.

Was the apostle Paul "Blasphemous"? What large group of bishops did Paul studying under, or did he have to go to the apostles?

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

V-12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It sounds to me like Paul believed in private interpretation when the Holy Spirit was the teacher.

Where did the apostles at Jerusalem jump on Paul's back for teaching from his private studies with Christ. They knew and understood that this was the way the Holy Spirit was going to work from now on, and they didn't fight against it like the RCC'c do today.

[OLD REGGIE]

Is it just my imagination, or is there a sneer on your face when you use your favorite term "neo-Christian"?

[JHavard]

You simply do not know anything about the members of the Church.

Nothing.

Try the most rudimentary "lives of the saints" book before speaking on the subject again.

OK fellas, I'll be gone for a while, I have to find a book about the Catholic named saints, and read it before I can make any more comments on these threads.

Hey, if we just tell each other to read a book, we don't have to answer any questions, OK, why don't you RCC's read, gulp, "the Bible" before you tell us what God wants?

[OLD REGGIE]

It also makes the Bible seem like lies, since it says he was truly tempted in all ways, and yet did not sin.

Where does it say that?
------------------------------------------------------------

Mark 1

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

. . .

13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.

[JHavard]

With all the Catholics screaming about us and our "Private Studies", how did we miss this, Paul invented it, Paul and The Holy Spirit, Christ, it was private, no others were present, get it?

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

V-12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.