Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
As long as you insist that God is three while the Bible says that God is one, you are wrong.
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
"My Lord and my God!"
That is simply the figure of speech hendidys. You really should study figures of speech or you'll think that Jesus really meant that Peter was literally satan!
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ...
Seems that you had to insert a comma to make your point. Blue Letter Bible KJV doesn't support your quotation. Add to that the greek texts don't have punctuation. In order to not contradict perfectly clear texts, this should simply indicate the righteousness of God and Jesus. But you choose to make it say what it clearly doesn't say.
Please explain to me why the word ghost is ever used for spirit? It is always the same greek words, pneuma hagion or derivitaves. FWIW, I do not believe that the Spanish or German versions of the Bible use the word ghost at all. Some German friends of mine think that is funny how the KJV chose that word.
Other concepts to consider:
Jesus has a separate will from his father's;
Jesus did not know everything;
Jesus PLAINLY said that those that believe on him would do the same works AND GREATER because he went to his father.P>If Jesus is God, then Believers will do greater works than God, at least according to you and the RCC.
Funny how the Word of God bitchslaps non-belevers, isn't it?
Literal? Are you under the impression that I think Jesus handed something to Peter that He had made at a hardware store?
You were refuted in kind: you repeated YOUR arguments anyway.
And thus ends the only reason to read this thread. Almost more revealing than anything anyone has said in this thread is how they said it. On one hand, your posts are consistently calm, well supported with specific Scriptural or other examples (including direct quotes and pictures), logically constructed, on topic and never personally insulting. On the other hand, responses to your posts were typically hostile, poorly (or simply not supported) with any examples, personally insulting toward you, regularly off topic (why does it matter when your church was formed?), and sounded a lot like conversations I hear between my two seven year olds when they are tired or hungry.
It reminds me of the Coretta Scott King funeral from yesterday. On a single stage sat 4 Presidents. Two former Presidents who are still desperately trying to transform their Presidential legacies into something more than failure and wasted potential. Another former President whose greatest legacy is represented by our current President. And finally, our current President. When President Bush spoke to what was essentially a hostile crowd, his words were graceful and appropriate. They were the words of a man secure in his own beliefs, and willing to share whatever he could to help make King's memorial service an honorable event for an honorable woman. Then Clinton and Carter spoke. What a contrast. There was no grace. There was anger and even hatred. Their words were directed at the one man on the stage who had something they never will have...the confidence to know he is right, and the peace that can only come through true faith in God. The contrast couldn't have been more clear.
When you are insecure and unsure about what you believe in, it is the most natural thing in the world to lash out at those you disagree with. Especially when they don't seem to share your insecurity. The anger that bubbles up almost immediately on these threads is ample evidence that a lot of Christians really aren't very secure on where they stand. It is a shame that their solution seems to be to try to tear others down in an attempt to find security they obviously don't have.
Thanks for your inputs. They made the thread worth reading. And with your departure from it...I won't return.
Yes, indeed...
No but you seem to be.
For someone who preaches about the evils of "sola scriptura" it sure is amussing watching you insist on a literal interpretation of John 6:53.
Jesus says:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door" - John 10:7
But you say he is not made of wood.
Jesus was clearly speaking in parable of His role in protecting His flock. Not an appropriate comparison to the Last Supper. In the Last Supper He said, "This is My Body...". Show me anywhere else where He said, "This door is Me."
Jesus says:
"I am the true vine," -John 15:1
But you say he does not have leaves.
Show me anywhere else in the Bible where Jesus says, "This vine is Me."
Jesus says:
"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:" - John 6:35
Yet you insist that he can be pulled out of an oven and served???
Yes, I do.
Here you have stumbled on my point. Jesus wasn't speaking in parable on this occasion. He was making comparisons. The Jews sought a sign. He said that He is the bread come down from Heaven (manna) and whoever eats of this bread (as opposed to their ancestors who ate of manna and still died) will have eternal life. When they grumbled and many left, He didn't call them back saying they had misunderstood. No. He said it more forcefully.
Add to this the record of the Last Supper and I again ask you:
Was it bread and wine Jesus served His Apostles at the Last Supper or His flesh and blood?
I'm FRing at work and have to leave now. I will check back tomorrow for your answer. Good night and God bless.
It's entertaining to watch someone dance a victory dance when they have no idea who's winning...
Sola Scriptura refers to the Protestant practice of not allowing for anything outside of the Bible to have religious weight. It means "the Scriptures Alone". Catholics believe Scripture is the word of God inspired through human authors and we give it due weight. We also believe that God hasn't been silent in the last 2000 or so years. He continues to speak through the magisterium of the Church in the Sacred Tradition. Tradition with capital "T" is different from customs and little "t" traditions. Sacred Tradition is the mortar to the bricks of Scripture. Where Scripture is silent or more complex than the Words on the page, Tradition explains. They are NEVER in conflict.
Sola Scriptura is wrong because God is not silent. Jesus promised His Spirit would come to guide the Church. Not just for the first Apostles but until the end of the age.
Wasn't proclaiming victory. I was just amused. Kinda like slowing down to watch a train wreck.
Peter was never in Rome. The scriptures show him in in Jerusalem at the council about 46 A.D. and in Antioch with Paul about 53 A.D. When Paul wrote to the Romans (about 58 A.D.) He never mentions Peter....but Greets 27 other individuals. If Peter were the Bishop this would be highly unlikely. Catholic tradition says that Peter was the Bishop between 42 A.D. and 67 A.D. but you can now see the spurious nature of that statement.
The scriptures show Peter in many places, including Antioch, Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, Babylon but never Rome. This would bring Peter's ministry into question if it were not for Galatians 2:7. Rome was the "center of the Universe" in Peter's time....but he had been instructed to go elsewhere. He was an Apostle to the circumcised (the Jews and other Israelites) while Paul preached to the "Gentiles".
Romans 15:20....Paul says he would never preach upon another man's foundation. If Peter were the leader of the Church at Rome this statement would be incredible.
Babylon means Babylon. There was still a large contingent of Jews living in and around the Babylon area, descendants of those in the captivity 600 years earlier. Peter was their Apostle.
Not a problem for me. As a Catholic we receive the Eucharist through the miracle of transubstantiation. The apostles and early church fathers did the same.
Since you weren't there you can only assume the apostles did if you take John 6 literally. And we shouldn't do that, it would be "sola scriptura". :-)
Sola Scriptura vests us with an authority that Scriptura does not give us. If it is to mean anything, it would be to make standard the canon established in the 4th Century. Since we have no first century copies of the New Testament books, we are heavily dependent on tradition for its contents.
There were thousands of posts on the NES of Catholics defending their literal interpretations of John 6. And now I'm supposed to believe since there were no 1st century copies of John it doesn't matter? LOL. You guys need to get together and get your stories straight.
The doctrine came before the writing down of it. I am not talking about transsubstantiation, which was a response to a controversy, but the doctrine of the Real Presence. In my opinion, the true literalism is a belief that the words of the Eucharist are merely symbolic. If grace can come to us by scanning the words of Scripture, it can come to use through ritual language.
If Jesus can be with us "in spirit,"--which is to say in emotions-- he can be with us in the form of bread and wine.
Well ok. I just wish you would have spoken up and corrected all your Catholic bretheren on the NES. You could have saved us a couple of weeks.
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.