Posted on 06/11/2007 3:29:03 AM PDT by markomalley
I believe the author’s point is to identify many obvious abuses that have been attributed to defective reading of scripture.
I think that is his point too but take issue with the way he stated - The Bible Says, when the Bible doesn't say that.
You have a point in that the different sects believe different things (and of course all of us think we have the correct interpretation). For that reason I think the Bible must be taught chapter by chapter and verse by verse so one can't pick a verse here and there.
I know, your mileage may vary on this one. But that’s the way we see it.
My mileage does vary on the "tradition" part but I certainly admire your way of stating it.
......Ping
I don't think this will be a problem for most readers, provided they read the entire article
You could be right but it was difficult for me to go past The Bible Says once I read what the Bible doesn't say.
I understand what you and Markomalley are saying about this but I don't know any way to overcome the problem. I see following many traditions as going against Father's Word. I also see many interpretations as a complete misunderstanding of His Word. So, where does one go then?
I study, I pray and ask for Him to lead, guide and direct my life. I ask for Him to enable me to discern truth and tell others truth only. Other than that, it is in His hands.
......Ping
So there we were, having a nice, polite conversation. Do we all agree? No. But are we being disagreeable in our discussion? Hardly.
Then, out of the blue, we have an individual who believes it is his God-given responsibility to start throwing ****-bombs in the middle of a perfectly nice thread:
- But I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find the average Catholic that would know there is noting in the scripture that would lead one to beieve these statements are credible...
- Not at all, coming from the Catholic religion...
- And he warns (in the scripture which is the result of the traditions he taught) about religions like yours...
Now I pinged all of you to ask you for your opinion on this...is the behavior appropriate? Does it reflect the presence of Christ in the person's life? Is it a manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit?
I'm just curious...I know many of you do not agree with Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy...the source from which the original article comes). And I'm not asking you for your approval or disapproval of either of those religions. I am asking you whether or not you believe it's appropriate to invade a thread that is going along so politely...
Thanks, in advance, for your responses...
Well, you know, people can disagree without being disagreeable. I think you've done an admirable job of that.
- Not at all, coming from the Catholic religion...
- And he warns (in the scripture which is the result of the traditions he taught) about religions like yours...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I pinged all of you to ask you for your opinion on this...is the behavior appropriate? Does it reflect the presence of Christ in the person's life? Is it a manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit?
I'm just curious...I know many of you do not agree with Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy...the source from which the original article comes). And I'm not asking you for your approval or disapproval of either of those religions. I am asking you whether or not you believe it's appropriate to invade a thread that is going along so politely...
*************
I'm a Catholic, if anyone was wondering. I have grown to expect that certain posters will say provocative things on these threads, and I often choose not to read their posts. I confess I did not initially read those.
Are these posts in particular an attempt at rudeness? Perhaps. They might just as well be a shout for help from a deep well of sadness and confusion.
Part of the problem here is that the view you attribute to those of us with our roots in the Reformation is that what is described here might be more accurately referred to as “solo” scriptura and not “sola” scriptura. There is a difference.
Wow.
Paul spent 3 years with the Resurrected Christ?
Jesus taught Paul everything?
Paul taught the other Apostles?
And, by the way, since most of the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, Paul’s teachings are oral, except for his own writings. Tradition. Authority to teach. Authority to interpret. Authority to pass on teachings to others.
Waiting with bated breath.
Iscool, I fear that applies to so many people, so many Christians. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
I have been looking for a certain scripture but can't find it. In it God tells those that are following Satan that he will always allow them to have a leader because they listen to their father. He seems to admire them for that and in doing so is admonishing us for not being as good a child as they.
So many Christians don't read or really KNOW His Word. Until a few years ago I didn't realize the anti-christ comes first, pretending to be Christ. I would have fallen for his deception believing I was doing the right thing.
.....Ping
On the contrary. The convolution of this passage from remembrance to "transubstantiation" was fully anticipated.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
It seems to me that if you post provocative material you ought not be surprised by similarly provocative responses.
The Bible and the Fathers teach the Real Presence. The Catholic teaching of the Transsubstantiation is a way to rationally explain the Real Presence. There is no claim that the doctrine of Transsubstantiation is directly scriptural or even patristic.
Bump for later
In reference to Mark's earlier question: Threadjacking (which has not happened here, but has happened on other threads), Assertions made without citations or any kind of explanation, or just general rudeness are not appropriate, especially when the discussion is going as well as it was here.
I'll admit, I'm not perfect; at times I've been overly forceful with other posters, and I'm sure I've in a few cases even been rude. That doesn't make it right to do any of those things (or anything else generally considered inappropriate).
Could you define what is meant by the “Real Presence”? Also, Scriptural support would be greatly appreciated.
I think this is a matter of opinion. But granting it for the moment, when it started out with strongly provocative assertions of what the Bible says, it sets a tone, as well as an expectation in the reader; it should come as no surprise that some responses might be driven by these.
I find this a poor excuse, but perhaps I expect too much from my fellow posters.
I will accept that designation. If it can be shown where I've gone onto a thread and attempted to hijack it.
I will consider that designation. If it can be shown where I've gone onto a thread and started criticizing the wrong group (the article was from an Eastern Orthodox source, not a Catholic source).
I will accept the reproof...implied..."Let he without sin cast the first stone."
Beautiful article...saved for later reflection.
Sorry for interrupting here, but there is a thread recently posted that may be of interest to you along these lines:
Scenes from the German Lutheran Convention
The tragedy is that these people believe they are acting scripturally.
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.