Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Is 1 Peter 3:21 Bible?
The Body of Jesus/Christ(I Cor 11;29) is what?..
1) Flesh?.. 2) Some kind of Humanity?.. 3) an Earthly organization?..
The Body of Christ is a metaphor of "something else"..
The word "church" has been corrupted to mean what it don't mean scripturally..
The Body of Christ implies need for a Head..
The Head and the Body of Christ is metaphorically the Christ.. both together..
If NOT then the metaphor of the body of christ is Stupid..
Mere prose, great swelling words, rhetoric, parsing semantics..
I'm glad you recognize that. What we see in the early church and throughout church history is a wide variety of interpretations of a great many things, but in the cases of the first several councils, starting with the first one in Jerusalem recorded in Acts, there was a consensus on the main and plain doctrines of the faith. Same goes for the Council of Nicea. The early church was not nearly as dogmatic as some seem to think, but on the essentials they were staunchly dogmatic and rightly so.
The period in which Irenaeus was writing "Against Heresies", Irenaeus was responding in particular to the Ebionites and the Docetists who were on opposites extremes of the same issue. The Ebionites were Jews who denied the Deity of Christ, whereas the Docetists were Hellenists dualists who denied the Humanity of Christ, both cited Scriptures, twisting them beyond their clear meaning. I happen to agree with Irenaeus that the church correctly interprets the Scripture pertaining to the essential doctrines of the faith. However, history proves that interpretative function does not reside in any particularized church, but is with unanimous consent.
What is preposterous is the assertion that the Roman church is the sole arbiter of Christian truth, and the sole interpreter of Scripture, when history is replete with contradictory interpretations coming out of the Roman church, contradictory doctrines being taught by the Roman church, Roman popes interpreting Scripture in contradiction to the consensus of the church fathers. Councils even that are claimed to be "infallible", have contradicted each other, most may remember the iconoclast controversy, whereby one earlier "infallible" council condemned icons, only to have a later "infallible" council reverse that decision and condemn the earlier council's canons as heresy. Now, I don't know about you, but when you have two directly opposing decisions by two "infallible" councils they cannot both be right nor infallible. It is a logical fallacy to purport such a thing , as a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, but Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both make that very assertion, and expect rational people to actually believe it.
But it's important for the entire team to be speaking the same language and to have basic notions decided.
I agree, which is precisely what the first several councils did, on the main and plain things of the essential doctrines of the faith, resulting in the Nicene Creed.
We're at war here, and it shouldn't be against each other.
I wish that were the case. If you can convince Rome to renounce the anathemas of the Council of Trent, renounce it's position on Justification, renounce it's dogmas of Penance, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, purgatory and renounce it's position on petrine primacy, then there will be a basis for discussion based on truth.
You misunderstand what the Church teaches. Penance does not atone for anything. After the sin is forgiven in a sacramental confession, the priest assigns penance for the benefit of the penitent, but the sin is forgiven the moment the priest absolves it, and not after the penance is done. This is a common misunderstanding.
Then someone needs to correct Ludwig Ott, John Hardon and a host of other Roman Catholics, including the Council of Trent because that is exactly what they state of penance, being the atonement or reparation or expiation of sins committed after baptism.
As to Roman Catholic distortion, that is strictly your OPINION. Once you decide to actually read "Against Heresies", you will find out that there is only ONE valid and authorized interpretation.
Certainly, you can agree that people can read the Bible differently. What makes you the "deciding vote" on what is "distortion" and what is orthodox???
The Gnostics didn't like that line of thought, and neither do you. Sorry, but that is what Irenaeus wrote and that is what the early Church believed.
Regards
Duh. We live in the age of charlatans.
Yes, as the fraudulent forgeries Rome has used to assert authority it never had, such as the Donation of Constantine, Liber Pontificallis, and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals prove of the charletans in the Roman Catholic religion.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
You lost me here. Have a good day.
You asked: You think this is a good thing?
There is plenty of proof in our day and age that having access to the Bible is does not make one a good Christian. Jesus left one commandment. To love, not to read the Scriptures.
My point was to say that a person can be a good Christian and be illiterate. There are countless examples of that. Reading the Bible is NOWHERE mentioned as a requirement for entrance into heaven. Now, with all things considered, of course, the Bible is a good thing and not having the Bible can be a bad thing. But it doesn't follow that one MUST have a Bible and be able to read it to join Christ in heaven. St. Irenaeus gives us an example of people who WERE LIVING THE FAITH - while, the Gnostics, WHO HAD THE BIBLE, were not!!!
Regards
Regards
He seems to think that his interpretation of the Bible is THE interpretation given by God directly to HIM. Meanwhile, God's Church is left without a clue. Imagine that...
In my over 5000 posts, I have learned one thing that appears universal. Protestants generally believe that their own interpretations are not subject to error. Thus, when the Catholic Church disagrees with their interpretation, naturally, Rome is wrong and they are correct. Even if this was held for 2000 years, Rome is still wrong...
I have chosen to ignore him until he cools down and reads some of the Fathers, esp. Irenaeus.
Brother in Christ
Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same....
the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who confesses his sins with the proper dispositions remits both the guilt and the eternal punishment (of mortal sin). There remains, however, some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or hereafter (see PURGATORY). In order to have it cancelled here, the penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his "penance", usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Alms, deeds, fasting, and prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the penitent may receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy Communion) immediately after confession, since absolution restores him to the state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the performance of his penance until it is completed.
If you have specific questions about Ott, Hardon, or Trent, don't hesitate to post the material that troubles you, and ask.
Well said, dear sister, and thank you for the kind words. :)
I suspected that.. but I must be true to my testimony..
The head of the body of christ is NOT a human or humans..
The head also, is not a missa/lozenge/piece of bread..
Ingested by humans.. as nourishment to flesh..
Every Protestant believes that Baptism is merely an ordinance? Perhaps you should poll the Anglicans. My point is not to argue specific theology, but to point out that you are incorrect to state that Protestants share a common faith at the specific level on key issues. One of the problems with defending the faith vs. Protestants, from my point of view, is that I don't know where "john doe" stands regarding "theology x" until he says something. Everyone can learn what Catholicism teaches by reading the Catechism. It is quite simple to find it. As to Protestants, where is this source that I can go to that explains what you believe, all of you, on a variety of subjects, because it would make my job a lot easier rather than guessing what I am up against beforehand.
Where does this come from? Verse 17 says plainly "IF ANYONE" (KJV - "any man"), not "if any community". The condemnation in 17 is on the one, not the many. If you look at my quote I said that 16 was plural, not 17 (except for the last "you").
LOL! You are attacking your own position by changing your story. Of course Paul is not condemning the entire community. However, that was your stance several posts ago, which I then responded sarcastically:
So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community???
You are clearly befuddled on these verses, aren't you? Don't feel too badly, most Protestant commentaries do not have an adequate response to them.
Not in Catholicism we're not, because there is no such thing as spiritual death for you until one dips a toe into the lava. :) In Catholicism being spiritually dead is like being three days behind on the electric bill. No big deal, just pay the $10 late fee (do your penance) and you are suddenly NOT spiritually dead.
Doing your penance doesn't forgive sins. Jeez, if you are going to make fun of us, at least get it right...I tire of the strawman you have erected.
I presume you read the story of the Prodigal Son. Are you saying that God only forgives sins one time? Even you must admit that a person can become so enamoured in sin that they are considered spiritually dead and not capable of repenting without some miraculous intervention by God. I think we need to discuss what "spritually dead" is, since you have a mistaken concept. Every sin doesn't cause spiritual death - as John's epistle clearly states.
The vast majority of the first ante-Apostolic Christians did not have the means or clout to have their beliefs preserved in perpetuity. No one can know what they were.
What we have is enough to tell us that Catholicism is a continuation of Biblical Christianity. Take the Fathers as historical records, not God-inspired works, and you will find out that the information we have leads us to believe that the Catholic faith that we have today is the full-grown mustard seed of Peter's day. You are placing your hope on the absence of records. That is not how historians work. We look at what is available and (presuming that the source is not an avid liar proven by other sources) accept the historical document as truthfully relating events.
If historians worked the way you are imagining, we would "KNOW" nothing about the past. "Maybe the South won the US Civil War and there was a big conspiracy to cover it up"... No, if you apply that logic to the roots of Christianity, then you would have to apply it elsewhere to be consistent. You are special pleading.
It is debatable whether some of the early Church Fathers believed in some form of Sola Fide, but I won't even go there.
Wise decision. I have not seen one sentence that stated such a fantasy. Either the first Christians were hopelessly distorting the Gospel just given to them or the Gospel has been preserved intact and the Reformation folks are wrong. If God preserves His People from error (the Church IS the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH), then where does that lead the protester?
For any Roman Catholic of the time in power and authority (who wished to remain so) to support Sola Fide would be like a modern day Democrat supporting tax-cuts, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or allowing the mention of God in a public school. Bottom line - political suicide.
That's just plain nonsense, FK. Why would a Catholic of 300 AD worry about writing something that might be used by the reformers 1200 years later? Those men were theologians writing to the people of their time, expressing their beliefs of God, Christ, and the plan of salvation. Politically correct? You should read some of the stuff the Fathers wrote. Trust me, they weren't afraid to express their opinions as they wrestled with the issues of the times, such as Jesus' connection with the Father. The debate swings back and forth as the Church looks inward at its beliefs, trying to put them down and define them more narrowly. You think they did that in such a way so that the Pope didn't haul them off to the dungeon because of some reformer might pick up on it in 1520??? Please.
James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God.
Some of the "reformers" didn't think so. It is a sign of a heretic to eliminate parts of the Word of God. Whether they are Gnostics or Protestants, the effect is the same: twist the Scriptures to try to get it to say what you want. And if that doesn't work, cut out those offending parts, like 2 Maccabees or Sirach, or James. That is exactly what Luther did or try to do He even added the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 because he wasn't satisfied with the Scriptures and thought that he might help God explain things better.... That is the type of person you base your interpretation of the Bible upon.
James and Paul only contradict when a works-based salvation model is thrust upon James, against his free will at that. :)
Who said anything about works salvation in James? It says that faith alone doesn't save! Consider Sola Fide dead and buried. It doesn't say that works alone saves. See, the problem is that you have to have it "either/or". Too bad. It prevents you from seeing the wonderful integrity of the entire Bible without having to build a "canon within a canon" by always falling back on Paul, Paul, Paul...
James and Paul both recognize that a faith that doesn't show works is no faith at all, yes. This does not at all mean that works are a separate and distinct component of salvation. Works are an included component of true faith.
Which means that faith is not alone. Spell out the consequences of what you have said. There is hope for you yet...
Then I said you must not honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, et al. because I know the Church doesn't venerate them anywhere near the way you do Mary.
No, I think you said that we don't honor the OT men at all. You never said anything about honoring them "anywhere near Mary".
Where does the Bible say that the world will venerate Mary in the way that you do?
Nowhere. But I doubt the Bible would foretell my personal devotions, anyway.
Regards
Whatever. Sorry if common sense bothers you, but your idea that Rome is distorting the Gospel is your personal opinion. Don't take this the wrong way, but you are not exactly convincing me that you are right and 2000 years of holy men are wrong...
Go read "Against Heresies", unless you are afraid of the truth.
Adios
h-o-o-o——aaaah
Here is where I disagree: Jesus left one commandment. To love, not to read the Scriptures.
Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, "Did ye never read in the scriptures......
22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Luke 24:32...while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the scriptures.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Matthew 12:3 But He said unto them, "Have ye not read what David did.....
12:5.Or have ye not read in the law.....
19:4 And He answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that He Which made them at the beginning made them male and female
21:16 ...And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise'?"
One of the major problems with not reading the Bible and getting your Biblical education from "man" is that then you don't know if it is false doctrine or not. Jesus warns us about that. It was His first warning when the disciples asked Him to tell them of what to expect in end times.
Mark 13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say "Take heed lest any man deceive you.
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "take heed that no man deceive you.
Luke 21:8 And He said, "Take heed that ye be not deceived<.b>; for many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them.
I appreciate the point you were trying to make but I think it is very dangerous to take man's word on God's Word. After all, that man won't be with us when we stand before God. If I have misunderstood St. Irenaeus and he was only giving an example of "people who WERE LIVING THE FAITH - while, the Gnostics, WHO HAD THE BIBLE, were not"!!!, then please accept my apology. It's just that the sentence of "he defends those Christians who NEVER READ THE BIBLE - AND HE PRAISES THEM!" didn't sound right to me.
........Ping
I enter here where angels fear to tread.
When you quote words of Jesus in this post, I believe that He is referring to the Scriptures of the Old Testament— i.e., “have you not read what David did?”. (in the the Old the New is contained, in the New the Old is explained).
As for John 1:1-—”and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” I believe, of course, that the Word referred to here is God Himself. The New Testament words of God were written after his Redemptive suffering and death. But—in the beginning—He was always the Word.
I am absolutely no theologian, so I understand that I have put myself on hallowed ground here. Still, it seems very uncomplicated to me that the Bible as we know it today was not what carried the first generation of believers.
We read in Acts that they met in community, read the Scriptures, prayed together and broke the Bread. The Scriptures that they read, as I understand it, were those from the Old Testament that revealed that Emmanuel had come and was Jesus the Lord, who suffered and died for us and sent us the Holy Spirit. The Gospels were not yet written for two generations. If, by Scriptures, one would think this means the letters of Paul, Peter, Jude, and Titus-—they were letters at that time, and not canonically part of the New Testament.
I’m just inquiring.
I have a great love and hunger for the Sacred Scriptures, but don’t approach it with a theological background or with the intent of exegesis. I just let it nourish my soul day by day.
I think I just learned everything I need to know about peace-making.
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.