Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
Stubborn, are you serious in posting this, or do you think CBS might be monitoring this thread?
I doubt if Dan Rather is looking for new scoops right now.
If you seriously believe this is creditable, I have a pile of good PCVM’s, Punch Card Voting Machines here in Florida I'm willing to sell at a reasonable price.
Tell me this is a joke, because I'd hate to mark you off as as, as....well, as ..gullible.
JH :)
Do you mean like the hospital records, and the cutting off of the umbilical cords and ets.? Lol
JH :)
Private interpretation of Scripture is condemned - even in your Bible.
Well, for the first 16 or so years, they used the Old Testament and studied prophesies about the Messiah.
They also repeated what the apostles were teaching, and took notes and shared them. Then after that, Paul had sent out his epistle of Galatians around 49AD, then new ones every year or so for the next 15 or 20 years.
Each Church copied them as fast as they got them and passed them on to the next church. A good Copyist could probably turn out 4 or 5 copies a day.
I see no problem what so ever with the Christians not having more then enough to read and study.
Lessons were memorized and written down, and as Paul told them in 2 Tim 2:2, And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Notice that Paul told them only to hear his words that have been verified by two or more faithful witnesses, so there was no traditions or hearsay allowed.
Now as far as your quoting 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
V-21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Peter is talking about prophecies such as God gave to the fathers of old, as he explains in the 21st. verse, and they weren’t from the fathers anyway, they were directly from God..
So please don’t confuse reading and understanding God’s word with prophesying, that’s not what Peter was talking about.
JH :).
Its no joke. Its what my Bible teaches.
Your interpretation contradicts Scripture as well as the Church's interpretation.
***but why is Paul's epistle superior in authority to James, the brother of Jesus and the head of the Church at Jerusalem?***
But I thought you guys didn't believe that Jesus had any brothers, that they were just cousins, because Mary had to stay pure.
First you didn't answer my question: Why do you give Paul's epistle given superior authority to James'? They contradict. Do you just choose the one whose theology you like better?
Second, James was probably Jesus' step-brother.
Third, even if he was Jesus' full brother, by the same mother, Mary, that would merely confirm your literalist Scriptural argument. You would win on that point, but then you would have to turn and read, and apply "Faith without works is dead." That is not "Grace alone does it."
That is the antithesis of "Grace alone does it."
If we're going to be literalists here, then fine, do let's be literalists. The Bible says, in English, Jesus had brothers and sisters. For the sake of argument, I'll go ahead and accept a "Plain meaning rule" in English: Jesus had brothers and sisters (for the sake of argument), they were not step-brothers and step-sisters (for the sake of argument), and therefore (for the sake of argument) you win! Mary wasn't perpetually virgin (for the sake of argument).
Now let's move to other things also literally in Scripture:
"Faith without works is dead" - directly refutes "grace alone".
Prayers and alms to atone for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees).
Laying on of hands to impart the holy spirit.
No remarriage after divorce.
Do you dispute that any of these things are not directly, explicitly, literally in Scripture?
So then am I to assume that you worked this whole scenario out yourself by using the Bible?
Or did you copy and paste it from someone you trusted to have figured it all out ahead of time for you?
You have no idea what your missing, when you refuse to let God's Spirit work through you, so you understand His words, and not what someone else understood.
If at judgment day were asked to explain our belief, what will you do if they don't allow you to quote what others believed?
What would you do if you have to prove what you truly believe from God's word?
It would be great if your not so ingrained with pre-programmed ideas, if you could pick out a subject, ask God to direct you through His Spirit, and using only the Bible, work the whole thing out.
When your satisfied that it aligns with the Bible, then compare it with your Churches teachings and see how they match up.
I don't have a church I consider my own, but I do check other commentaries and beliefs to see how many have come to the same conclusions.
It's the most exciting thing in the world to let Gods Spirit flow through you. and not only to talk to Him and ask questions, but to then just sit and quietly listen to what He has to tell you about your self.
I fear that too many people who depend on the Church to tell them what they should think, miss out on this miracle He has to offer you.
JH :)
As far as my belief contradicting your Church, I'm fine with that, but I'll have to challenge you to show me where it contradicts scripture.
I'll be waiting. :)
JH :)
***"Faith without works is dead" - directly refutes "grace alone". ***
Let's tackle this one. What is being said is that if you claim to have faith, it will be self evident by the works you do. In other words, it is the grace of God which saves you, and grace alone, but the faith you have in that salvation is evidenced by the good works that you do. If you claim to have faith in God, yet you denigrate others, cheat others, lie about others, gossip, etc. I would question whether you actually have faith at all. However, if you demonstrate the gifts of the Holy Spirit in your life, that backs up your claim of faith. It's simple, really.
***Second, James was probably Jesus' step-brother. ***
There is no Biblical evidence to make this claim. Only speculation.
***Third, even if he was Jesus' full brother, by the same mother, Mary, that would merely confirm your literalist Scriptural argument. You would win on that point, but then you would have to turn and read, and apply "Faith without works is dead." That is not "Grace alone does it."
That is the antithesis of "Grace alone does it." ***
I'm not sure where you are heading with this. It seems to be two different points.
***No remarriage after divorce. ***
The Bible does say that if you do not have a biblical divorce and you remarry, you have committed adultery. I have never said otherwise.
***Prayers and alms to atone for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees). ***
I do believe that this is one of the verses that convinced the Protestants that this book doesn't belong in the Bible. Now, you and I can argue about this and it won't get us anywhere, because I believe in one Bible, you believe in another. I just have to go with what I know about this, as you do.
***Laying on of hands to impart the holy spirit. ***
I do not believe that just the action of laying on of hands gives you the ability to impart the Holy Spirit. That would mean that you would be in control of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is one member of the Godhead, and cannot be controled by anyone. If the Holy Spirit is preparing someone to recieve him, it could be that he allows someone to do the laying on of hands as this way to do it. But the Holy Spirit come upon people all sorts of ways, in His own way, in His own time, not because someone layed hands.
I think this should cover it :>)
Matt 13-55] Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
Mark 6-3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon?
Galatians1-19] But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord.
Don't place the hope of your eternal salvation in a helpless book that is easily misunderstood which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
My Church, the RCC, was established by God, not man. Plain as that is, you, for whatever reason, choose to deny it - but that does not change His promise that He will remain in His Church till the end of time - which is where I hope to remain till I meet Him.
*Its not a command for all to read the scriptures, but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive Him, whom all those scriptures gave testimony and through whom alone they could have that true life.
nuff said
My Church, the RCC, was established by God, not man. Plain as that is, you, for whatever reason, choose to deny it - but that does not change His promise that He will remain in His Church till the end of time - which is where I hope to remain till I meet Him.
Perhaps you should read your own history, and then answer my question of what year it was when the Catholic Church traditions, took priority over the Bible.
Augustine. In his treatise to prepare leaders of the church in an understanding of the Bible (0n Christian Doctrine), Augustine wrote: “Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.”
Augustine This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Augustine, Hippelytus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary, and Gregory all taught Sola Scriptura, but this was when the Church was still the Akklesia, or the called out ones, the assembly.
All these men lived prior to your Church becoming the State Church which was pronounced by Emperor Constantine around 312AD, and it began wheeling its power shortly after that.
What you now seem to consider as strange, that some of us believers still live by the word of God, your church was originally founded on. But then found out that with political and military power, it no longer needed the Bible to give them Gods authority, they could now give themselves authority.
Hurricane Jeanne’s banging at our door, and the powers blinking on and off, so I’ll finish up later when things are back to normal.
JH :)
I can trace the history of my church from Pope John Paul II all the way back to St. Peter, the one Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to.
The church does not take priority over the Bible - it never has. I submit that it is the mis-interpretations of solo scriptura folks that have such conclusions. The one you call "Augustine" is a saint and doctor of the RCC. Catholics know him as Saint Augustine.....please, read a little bit about the one you quote - and note the role that the Bible played in his conversion:
Feastday: August 28
This famous son of St. Monica was born in Africa and spent many years of his life in wicked living and in false beliefs. Though he was one of the most intelligent men who ever lived and though he had been brought up a Catholic, his sins of impurity and his pride darkened his mind so much, that he could not see or understand the Divine Truth anymore. Through the prayers of his holy mother and the marvelous preaching of St. Ambrose, Augustine finally became convinced that Catholicism was the one true religion. Yet he did not become a Catholic then, because he thought he could never live a pure life. One day, however, he heard about two men who had suddenly been converted on reading the life of St. Anthony, and he felt terrible ashamed of himself. "What are we doing?" he cried to his friend Alipius. "Unlearned people are taking Heaven by force, while we, with all our knowledge, are so cowardly that we keep rolling around in the mud of our sins!"
Full of bitter sorrow, Augustine flung himself out into the garden and cried out to God, "How long more, O Lord? Why does not this hour put an end to my sins?" Just then he heard a child singing, "Take up and read!" Thinking that God intended him to hear those words, he picked up the book of the Letters of St. Paul, and read the first passage his gaze fell on. It was just what Augustine needed, for in it, St. Paul says to put away all impurity and to live in imitation of Jesus. That did it! From then on, Augustine began a new life.
He was baptized, became a priest, a bishop, a famous Catholic writer, Founder of religious priests, and one of the greatest saints that ever lived. He became very devout and charitable, too. On the wall of his room he had the following sentence written in large letters: "Here we do not speak evil of anyone." St. Augustine overcame strong heresies, practiced great poverty and supported the poor, preached very often and prayed with great fervor right up until his death. "Too late have I loved You!" he once cried to God, but with his holy life he certainly made up for the sins he committed before his conversion.
Saint Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church, was born at Tagaste in northern Africa. His early life was spent in wicked ways. But thanks to the prayers of his holy mother, Saint Monica, at the age of thirty-three Saint Augustine was baptized a Catholic, in Milan, by Saint Ambrose. He returned to Africa and was made Bishop of Hippo. He died at the age of seventy-six. His two great works, the “Confessions” and “The City of God,” are among the most notable writings of all Catholic teachers. The body of Saint Augustine now rests at Pavia, in Italy. Any one of the sayings of Saint Augustine lets us know the golden quality of his brilliant mind. He says that “the heavenly ladder by which God came into the world was the humility of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Saint Augustine composed, along with Saint Ambrose, the beautiful hymn known as the “Te Deum,” which has twenty-nine verses, and which is often sung in Catholic choirs.
We pray for those suffering the wrath of the hurricanes, good luck
I can trace the history of my church from Pope John Paul II all the way back to St. Peter, the one Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to.
You mean you can trace names back to Peter with a little imagination, but you can’t trace the church, the Ekklesia, because it ceased to be when your people went against the command of God and turned it into a political organization. See Matthew 21:25-26
God hears our individual prayers from all over the world, and He sees us who truly believe as His church. Remember what He said, He no longer dwells in temple’s made by hands as he did once a year with Israel.
There is no more one single Church organization that represents God since He dwells within us. We as individuals may attend services in a building, but that doesn’t make the building the Church, it’s still simply a building made by human hands.
Gods church can not have a name, because that would allow anyone whom attends it to call himself by that name, which would not tell you a thing about their relationship with God. Even if you named a Church, “The Church of Gods Believers,” it would still tell you nothing about those who attended.
Gods church is made up of His believers, so everyone in it has to be of God, unless your going to say that everyone who calls themselves Catholic, are saved, and of God. If just one of them are not of God, then it cannot be called Gods true church, for only He knows those who are His.
The church does not take priority over the Bible - it never has. I submit that it is the mis-interpretations of solo scriptura folks that have such conclusions.
If the Bible condemns something, and you ignore and circumvent it by calling it a rich tradition, then you are giving tradition priority over Gods written command.
In my previous post to you, I stated that seven of the early church fathers from 100 to 450ad, believed in Sola Scriptura, and you responded to it by posting the life of Augustine.
I don’t get it? I didn’t question his sincerity, but I would like you to respond to the fact they believed the Bible was sole authority.
JH :)
You mean you can trace names back to Peter with a little imagination, but you can’t trace the church, the Ekklesia, because it ceased to be when your people went against the command of God and turned it into a political organization. See Matthew 21:25-26 Not so, we can trace the Pope, Christ's visible head on earth, all the way back to St. Peter the Rock - upon whom Christ built His Church, of which the gates of hell will not prevail against and will remain till the end of time - either that or Christ never made such a statement.
I don’t get it? I didn’t question his sincerity, but I would like you to respond to the fact they believed the Bible was sole authority.
They did not believe that the Bible was "sole" authority, thats why they became models and authorities in the RCC.
Here is what Saint Augustine says regarding your claim that they believed the Bible was the sole authority, using Mat. 4:6, He says: "Heretics quote Scriptures as the devil does here, in a wrong and forced sense. The Church cites them, like Jesus Christ, in their true sense and to confute their falsehood."
It is on this account, that the Catholic Church wishes persons to come to the study of the most mysterious and difficult book ever published, should bring with them some preparations of mind and heart, convinced that the abuse of the strongest and best food may be converted into deadly poison."
Using Luke 4:10, The Church says: We have the devil here again citing scripture, which shows how very dangerous a thing it is to put the Scripture, in the first instance, indiscriminately into every, even the most illiterate person's hands, without any previous disposition of the mind and heart, by study and prayer. How much more satisfactory must it be to be guided by the church of God, which Christ has promised to secure against all error, and which He comands all to obey.
Their belief had little to do with whether or not the Catholic Church adopted them as their own, as long as they didn’t renounce the Church to the point they had to be excommunicated.
There isn’t one early Church father whose beliefs in total would be accepted by your Church today, Augustine included.
Augustine believed that Christ death didn’t opened heaven for everyone, but that only a few were given the gift of faith and the promise of eternal life, in short he believed in predestination, which I’m sure your Church doesn’t agree with today.
Here is what Saint Augustine says regarding your claim that they believed the Bible was the sole authority, using Mat. 4:6, He says: "Heretics quote Scriptures as the devil does here, in a wrong and forced sense. The Church cites them, like Jesus Christ, in their true sense and to confute their falsehood."
This was handled perfectly by both Christ and Satan. Satan tried to spin Gods word to his advantage by quoting the scripture, and Jesus used the scripture to correct him, just as we should be doing today, and if you noticed, Satan accepted the written word as the ultimate truth.
Just think, if Jesus had been a Catholic, He’d have told Satan, we have a tradition to cover that, but since your not a Catholic, you’ll never understand it. Lol
It is on this account, that the Catholic Church wishes persons to come to the study of the most mysterious and difficult book ever published, should bring with them some preparations of mind and heart, convinced that the abuse of the strongest and best food may be converted into deadly poison."
These are just spiritual sounding words that mean nothing to a non-Catholic, try using scripture instead. :)
Using Luke 4:10, The Church says: We have the devil here again citing scripture, which shows how very dangerous a thing it is to put the Scripture, in the first instance, indiscriminately into every, even the most illiterate person's hands, without any previous disposition of the mind and heart, by study and prayer. How much more satisfactory must it be to be guided by the church of God, which Christ has promised to secure against all error, and which He comands all to obey.
There is nothing dangerous about anyone quoting scripture, because they’ll usually accept your scripture in rebuttal. It’s those who base their faith on traditions that its hard to discuss anything with because we have no common ground to work from.
JH :)
Another Quote of Saint Augustine: "Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. He can have honor; he can have the Sacraments; he can sing ‘Alleluia’; he can answer, ‘Amen’; he can hold the Gospel; he can have faith in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach; but never, except in the Catholic Church can he have salvation."
Your claim that the Catholic church adopted them is a result of your mis interpretations because the Church willingly invites all into Her fold as adopted children - but where you stumble is in the fact that it is they who have not only adopted the RCC for their own, they did it because they knew that She is the only way to God.
Augustine never referred to the church at Rome as the “Catholic Church” a noun, and if he had lived another 50 years, he’d have probably have denounced the whole thing.
He understood that the church Christ established was a group of believers who were the members of the body of Christ, but Christ was the head, and not some man.
Had you been able to read it, when he actually wrote it, it would have probably said, “except in the universal assembly can a man have salvation.” At the time he said it, I may have agreed with him, but your Church is no longer that assembly.
What is the earliest extant copy you have of that quote you posted from Augustine? I’d be interested in seeing it.
I see you’ve followed “Catholic Apologetics 101,” pretty well. You managed to divert the subject from Mary giving birth of four other boys and a couple of girls, then to Sola Scripture, and now finally into your Church History, which is all smoke and mirrors that could easily leave a sane person babbling to him self and cutting out little paper dolls. :)
The subjects has gotten too general for a discussion, but if you care to go back and work on whether or not Mary remained a virgin, I’ll be glad to accommodate you.
JH :)
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.