Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT 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 |
They didn't. Read verses 59 - 61 when the disciples leave. No mention of them mumbling about flesh. Then verse 67, Jesus says," Will ye also go away??" To which Peter replies in verse 68 and 69, ".."Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. [69] And we believe and are sure that thou art that Chirst, the Son of the living God.
Look back now at verse 64..."For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
It wasn't about eating flesh that the disciples split and ran over. The rest of the passage betrays that clearly. The problem was unbelief. And Peter sums it up and says, 'hey, who would we follow. The rest of us believe in you.' Of Course, Jesus turns around and says, 'Yeah, all but one - who is a devil'.
Now to drive the stake further in, look at verse 62. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Or in other words, 'What will it take for you to believe in me at this point, seeing me asend to heaven?' He's arguing His case, not about eating flesh - that was but a metaphor applied to the original statements about belief in Him. It's all there plain as the nose on your face. It loses it's planeness when you start trying to shove it in your doctrine box and refuse to see more than you are told. That is your problem. The scripture speaks quite well for itself there.
Remembering is conjuring up the past in our minds and feeling the weight of the doing. You've done no more than quote a text book definition of remembering. Ya'll really beg all the questions.
So we lost this one for Bush! Way to go Skins!
I call myself a christian. There is an historical record. Its in the book of Acts where its recorded they were first called christians in Antioch. I didn't get my name from some dude in 110 ad who made a statement about the church being catholic (universal). Remember, he was using "catholic" as a verb then. You've made it a noun. You're the one easily duped. You should be askin' yourself questions.
Good misdirection. I have now made two extensive posts on the use of trogo in John 6 but no one has bothered to try to refute them. Further, no one has ceased using trogo as a piece of the puzzle of transubstantiation. When faced with the evidence, ignore. Or point back to an issue that is tangential to the method I used in making my point.
There is good evidence for many Protestant doctrines from the time of the first century. The hang-up for you is that there is not a continuation of those early beliefs to the present. The interesting thing is that if there is support for the Proddie beliefs in the 1st century why should we have to prove that they existed in the middle? Shouldn't that make for some interesting questions for you? Why haven't you continued in the doctrines and practices of the church of the first century? Why haven't you continued in baptism by immersion (which was the preferred method from the earliest documents we have)? Why don't you speak in tongues?
You view this as a continuity thing. We see it as a restoration thing.
Strictly speaking, Catholicism is not a denomination. It is the root, the mother Church. Every other church uses a name to de-nominate themselves away from the original. The Church has no need of a name, except in contrast to those who broke away from her.
This is why we can point to history as early as we can and see Catholic practice. And your style of Christianity is nowhere to be found. It is the later development and it de-nominates itself by eschewing a name.
If a church practicing 20th Century American fundamentalism existed at all times from Pentecost to today, we would expect to see some history of this church existing. Where is it? That is why it matters. Some people here have a church with a set of beliefs that is shown throughout history to have existed. Other folks are, I believe the phrase is, "living in a fantasy world."
I'll repeat it again. The interpretation of the "Church" shown in Acts is ambiguous. I see a proto-Catholic Church, you see a proto-"Bible only" Church. We can not tell from Scripture which is which. So let's look at history written after the NT. There's my church. Where is yours?
SD
I won't try to jump in on your whole argument here (I wasn't invited and haven't read all your posts), but the Catholic Church certainly does believe in the existence of speaking in tongues (both flavors). It's just not a common occurence
There are lots of "charismatic" Catholics, and they are not at odds with any doctrine I'm aware of (they were certainly supported by the parish I grew up in).
Which brings me to a confusion I've often had on these threads... I thought the original idea was a "debate" primarily between Catholic and Southern Baptist beliefs. Baptists are really the ones that view the gift of tongues in a negative fashion (not that RCs go full-boar Toronto-blessing kind of tongues). I'll try to answer the question for them: My understanding of their theory is that the gift of tongues was primarily a temporary gift for use until the cannon of Scripture was closed. I haven't got my Bible with me, but I think it's 1 Cor 13 that deals with seeing unclearly until the perfect comes etc.etc... Essentially, the fuller revelation of Scripture removed the need for the implied authority of tongues and the interpretation of tongues.
With respects... you are leaving our a number of faiths that were seperated from the early church more by geography than by theological schism. They can not properly be refered to as Protestants. Remember also that there are various "rites" within Catholicism that have variant practices from much of what has been argued on these threads as "Catholic belief" - like married priests - yet they are Catholic.
Thank you. Like, for example, classical uses of certain words meaning "little rock" and "rock"?
Good misdirection.
I'm sorry I thought you were making a good point about the unlearned use of Greek dictionaries to make points without understanding the context. I guess if the sword is two-pronged you don't like getting burnt by the blowback. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?)
It remains an awfully good point, regardless of whose ox gets gored.
I have now made two extensive posts on the use of trogo in John 6 but no one has bothered to try to refute them. Further, no one has ceased using trogo as a piece of the puzzle of transubstantiation. When faced with the evidence, ignore. Or point back to an issue that is tangential to the method I used in making my point.
I do find you opinion pieces enlightening but am in no position to make an argument with you about it. If the word for "Gnaw" has symbolic uses as well as literal animal like uses then I guess you have a point.
It doesn't change the truth about the sermon Jesus gave as I see it. Even when we fully understand the words used in English we still see different things. One sees a miracle and the other sees a metaphor. Our dissertation on the meaning of the metaphor to semitic culture doesn't stop Havoc et al from ignoring our points and steaming merily on ahead.
Such is the life here. Your scholarship is appreciated.
SD
Excellent question. If the Catholic Church teaches error, as many on these threads believe, then there must be a parallel group of Christians that have existed since the time of the Apostles that have taught and preserved true doctrine. In order for them to do that, they must have left a written record of this otherwise, how could Christianity survive for 2000 years? Now our Orthodox friends will immediately point out that the truth has been preserved in their Church. However, you guys don’t believe them either so who has preserved the truth?
Many of you say we don’t need proof, we have the Bible. To which I reply what about all those Christians that lived and died before the Canon of NT was closed around 400 AD? And even more importantly, it was the Catholic Church that decided and closed the canon. Did the Catholic Church get this right and was wrong about everything else? Where were you guys when all this was going on? Did you have representatives at the Council of Carthage in 397AD?
Another point is when Martin Luther declared everything we need for salvation is found in the bible and we can all interpret it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this was a novel idea. He did away with Holy Tradition, (except for the Sunday Sabbath which he admitted was given to us by the authority of the Church) and the teaching authority of the Church. Nobody had ever heard of this before. If we are to believe some posters, this should not have been a big deal. They claim Christians have been doing this since the time of the Apostles. If this is true, where’s the proof? That’s the point, there is none.
The fact that many don’t see this as a problem boggles my mind.
Of course. I am well aware of our eastern schismatic friends and some of the ancient churches which carry on the monophysite heresy or otherwise have broken continuity with the universal church. I didn't wish to belabor the point, and I think it is understood that no slight is given to them when we are attempting to re-embrace our Protestant brothers.
SD
And yet you remain outside.
Fervantly waving the banner which brought about disunity.
SD
Truth is paramount. The problem is our definitions of truth. I define truth as proven and indisputeable. You all seem to think truth is whatever fits your world view. I have high regard for truth; but, things like unproven claims, assumption/presumption, non-authoritative quotes, questionable writers, and an institution with a predelection toward manufacturing props for it's pontifications are not truth or the authors thereof. Prove it and it becomes truth. Till then, it's no more than piled waste wanting to be gold.
How is the answer to the collapse of a unified, if in need of reformation from corrupt practices, Church an utter fragmentation of Christian belief?
To put it another way, why was the banner of the Reformation not just reforming of the existing Church, but rejection of the entire idea of a unified Christendom?
SD
Actually I should have said I do not ignore everything else about what past christians said (that includes catholic christians), I only ignore the things that don't line up with scripture......And trust me there's alot that don't.
Yeah, that's anti-intellectual. It also leads many to follow the same stunted paths over and over, not realizing that the collective mind of Christendom has rejected these paths. And rejected them for cogent reasons and to forestall the development of further heresy.
I totally agree which is why I wonder why you're ok with a few of those catholic heresy's.
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.