Posted on 01/24/2007 8:41:04 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
"Foxe's Book of Martyrs" is a biased book written from a Protestant perspective to indict Catholicism. I put as much stock in it as I do Jack Chicks's comic books, which is ZERO.
There IS NO ORGANIZATION CALLED THE "RCC" there is nothing even officially called the Roman Catholic Church. There is a Latin (or Roman) Rite within the Church, but that's it.
I HAVE NOT acknowledged any "institutional barbarism" of the Church, that is a LIE and you know it. I stated a fact that the wars brought on by the Reformation resulted in massive and unnecessary bloodshed and that neither side was blameless.
Your comments make no sense. You're going to have to elaborate if you want anyone to understand your points.
Are you saying the body of Christ is the body of, I dunno, Joe down the street?
If you think that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on tradition, your grasp of logic and scripture are seriously lacking.
Very poor analogy. The Apostles lived and experienced the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
"400 years later..."
Believe the fables; believe a lie.
Your comments make no sense. You're going to have to elaborate if you want anyone to understand your points.
They make perfect sense to anyone willing to "reason"
"You are using Scripture to try to prove that Scripture is the Word of God."
No. I simply said it was the word of God, and "All that matters is the evidence given in scripture, and handed down according to God's promise in Isaiah 59:21 and logic." I did not elaborate and there is no such thing as "proof", only the evidence and logic applies. Otherwise, I've only addressed the authenticity of the Books and that they were written by His Apostles who knew Him and their associates.
"Circular reasoning? Where? You are using Scripture to try to prove that Scripture is the Word of God. I could write a book that says that."
You could write a book and I could verify that you wrote it. Then I would consider any claims contained within the book. If you claimed to be God, I would quickly reject that claim, because you already screwed up with "circular logic".
I know that scripture is the word of God, because I have examined the evidence for the claims God made in that book. The fundamental evidence is what He said. From that, I examine what any other person in the Book said, then any other outside the Book. The Book also says, that I would have the sign of the prophet Jonah also. I've found that to be true.
The Book tells a sufficiently complete story about who God is, what He has done, describes His Spirit, and contains no contradictions regarding those matters. That in itself is remarkable. No other person, or group of persons has ever could accomplished such a feat, and I believe they still can't in such a matter. God gave His word to those that accepted Him as little children and still, the perfection of composition shines through.
I do not believe the Bible on anyone else's authority. Especially those that create doctrines, because knowledge and understanding of God is non-axiomatic, not based on the authority of any man, and does not depend on democracy. It depends on the evidence, which is contained in the Bible, and is the evidence that provides for the draw given in John 6:44.
He said that others would be saved through believing the message about Him spread by the Apostles.
Last I checked, Luke wasn't an Apostle.
So then, you deny the church centered in Rome and headed by men calling themselves popes did not authorize, condone, and enforce a centuries-long, worldwide persecution of those who dared disagree with it?
That will come as a great surprise to many.
Once identified those words of the Apostles were greater than our own. The church is subordinate to the apostles and not vice versa.
Amen. And the church is subordinate to the word of god.
Unless you are speaking in the spiritual sense, that is not true. Paul and Luke did not become Apostles until years after the Resurrection.
"WHY WOULD GOD DEVISE A THEOLOGY THAT HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT FOR FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS?"
Gee, I was answering the post #153. I thought you were familiar with it.
I understood that, but there is no correlation between fifteen hundred years and the verses you quoted.
So why didn't they write about the Ascension in their letters? The letters long pre-date the Gospels. We have to rely on the hearsay of Luke dozens of years after the fact, and no eyewitness account. If, in your estimation, proximity is truth, your logic makes Luke's Gospel especially specious.
"Are you saying the body of Christ is the body of, I dunno, Joe down the street?"
Enough of the sarcasm. Read St. Paul who speaks of all Christians as members of Christ.
Those writings of Luke did go back to the Apostles. Luke put together the sources in Jerusalem and wrote them in order. He says so himself, and apparently, the churches verified this and passed this book down.
Additionally, of course, Luke was a participant with the (truly) main Apostle to the gentiles, Paul.
So, again, it goes back to the Apostles.
Four hundred years.
And given the proximity of time and location of Paul and Jesus' lives, as well as considering Paul's prominence in the Pharisaic sect (he studied under Gamaliel), it is unlikely that he knew nothing of Jesus. On the contrary, he disagreed violently with Jesus until the time of his conversion by Jesus.
No, of course not. Paul was converted six or seven years after the Pentecost and Paul converted Luke some time after that. I am merely pointing out that neither man knew (or certainly in Luke's case even knew of) our Lord during His lifetime.
Nothing proves that the sources were the Apostles themselves. If you're willing to believe that, without proof, they were, then what invalidates the declaration at Chalcedon except your opinion that they were all liars and evil men?
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.