Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
Isn't the number of Catholics determined by baptisms of members, some of whom are not actively involved in the church?
The point - Scripture alone didn't "teach" the Word of God. It was ONLY the re-interpretation of the OT writings, "properly understood in light of Christ's Death and Resurrection" that anyone would realize that the Christians possessed the truth. But for every prophesy of the OT, for every passage that "points" to Christ, a "non-believer" could issue another point of view or interpretation of the same passage and deny that it had any relevance to Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, brother, it is faith, activated by hearing the Good News (not reading the Scriptures) that begins to change one's paradigm, to become Christian, in the face of persecution and opposition from his former Jewish friends and family.
I would argue that the Good News can be found ... in the scriptures.John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Is it your belief that one cannot hear the gospel from the scripture ?
Do you suggest that there is some difference between hearing the gospel through one's ears ... and reading the gospel through one's eyes ?
BTW ... I would agree that the Bereans' scriptural search acted to confirm the gospel as preached to them by Paul.
Is it your belief ... that the Bereans' scriptural searching ... made no difference in their spiritual outcome ?
Perhaps no further arbitration is needed at this point. Perhaps … it shall endure as … a mystery.
Well, then the Bereans would have never been considered noble if they never made a decision, correct?
I would presume that the Bereans ... made a decision for Christ.
Is it your belief ... that the Bereans made some sort of decision concerning the Eucharist or needed to ?
Brother in Christ
That is not pertinent to the question regarding the interpretation of John 6:53-54. The question is "Why don't you interpret it the way it is clearly written in the Bible"? Regarding the rest of your points, I don't see how ANY of them go AGAINST the Scripures. Perhaps you disagree that they are there, but none of them contradict the Scriptures, unlike Protestant Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, which are clearly AGAINST the Scriptures.
Perhaps I should be asking you "Why do you as a Protestant go against the Scriptures"?
Regards
I wasn't speaking specifically about THIS thread being hijacked. I grant you that this thread IS an "open season" one as far as position defending goes. But, as I said, there ARE many Catholic threads getting hijacked on FR with virtually no reciprocation on our part. I stand by the assertion.
Meanwhile, I do not accuse those who disagree with the Catholic position on the issues as being "ignorant," etc. Serious posters and honest questioners are not even considered in what I said. An objective run-through of this loooonnngg thread should demonstrate my contentions amply.
No doubt! And they were given the proper means of looking at the Suffering Servant verses. Thus, other men came to the Bereans, taught by word of mouth the proclamation of the Gospel, it touched the hearts of these Jews, they looked at their Scriptures, meditated on it, discussed it, prayed on it, and began to believe in the Word, due to the faith that God had given them as initially brought to them by hearing (faith comes through hearing).
Is it your belief that one cannot hear the gospel from the scripture ?
To an uninitiated reader, there is a lot of "noise" that can give a person an incorrect reading of WHOM God is and His attributes, for example. Many people thought that the God of the OT was not the same God of the NT. Only by correct teaching were they able to bring the two Testaments together as one integrated whole. Only with external teachings and witness could they receive the correct "lense" to view Scripture through. We take this for granted, 2000 years removed, when we fail to realize that much of our beliefs come from our background and experience with others, and not so much our diligent study of Scriptures. Otherwise, why do so many people believe that by faith ALONE, we are saved? Or that the Eucharist is NOT the Real Presence, despite it being there in plain words? People, even Protestants, have a tradition that they read Scriptures through.
Is it your belief ... that the Bereans' scriptural searching ... made no difference in their spiritual outcome ?
I would say it was secondary. The Bereans AND the Thessalonicans BOTH knew the Scriptures, but the former were open to another way of interpretation - while the latter were not, being more like Paul before his conversion.
Is it your belief ... that the Bereans made some sort of decision concerning the Eucharist or needed to ?
I would presume that they followed what Paul taught, and Paul taught the Real Presence of the Eucharist, as did every other writer that mentions the subject up until the into the next millenium. Paul didn't teach a different Gospel than John 6. I don't think they "excluded" the teachings of the Eucharist - given that they believed that Paul's teachings were from God - likely expressed in the Power of the Spirit. Thus, they accepted all that was given.
Brother in Christ
The historical writings of the Catholic Church.
Care to cite a source?
Check out the writings of your own church fathers. As time passes you will find them deviating more and more from the scriptures, such a veneration of Mary, asigning people sainthood after then are dear and the false doctrine of Apostolic sucession to name a few.
Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings."
The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.
You speak my language, brother. However, it will be difficult to convene the Eight Ecumenical Council when the West has held to the belief that all the councils after 1054 have been "ecumenical."
Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.
No, I'm aware of my Church's doctrine. I'm certain that you are not. I'd like to see you quote the source of the accusation you make.
It's a lie if you're unable to back it up with source material.
Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples? Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath.
The statement you made that the Catholic Church began as a Christian heresy is simply unfounded, inaccurate and smells of a Chick tract.
Yet you insist that it's part of Catholic teachings.
Can you or can you not cite the source of that statement?
You clearly cannot back it up. Again, show me where - in accordance with our Church teachings - we Catholics believe that our Church began as a Christian heresy.
Apostolic succession is taught in Scripture. Who do you think appointed the overseers (= bishops). The Apostles did!
But more to the point, one of the most vehement defenders of Apostolic succession was Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, who was a disciple of Jesus. So three generations (and about 150 years) removed from the "beloved disciple" reclining on Jesus' breast, the true message had already been lost? And you think you've recovered it 2000 years later?
Doubtful, friend. Doubtful.
The word bishop, which you like used is translater elder in many cases. These men were not appointed by the apostles. That is unless you consider Timothy and Titus to be apostles. Peter calls himself an elder and an apostle. (I Peter 5:1) Do a little more Bible research and then get back to me.
I note you use the term apocrypha which means noncanonical. It must be stressed that these books were not considered canonical by the Jews. The church inherited the canonical books from God's Old Covenant people, the Jews. (God also gave the church additional books, the New Testament, which completes the Holy Bible). Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha. Jerome stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. More damning was his statement that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture". Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the canonical books. The Catholic Church itself did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500's. Luther did not remove these books - he merely returned them to the status that Jerome recognized. The RC Church has used them as an authority for bad doctrine - to establish doctrine that inspired doctrine would not give authority to.
yeah but only when it's convenient.
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.