Posted on 03/17/2010 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
If you ask people who Saint Patrick was, you're likely to hear that he was an Irishman who chased the snakes out of Ireland.
It may surprise you to learn that the real Saint Patrick was not actually Irish—yet his robust faith changed the Emerald Isle forever.
Patrick was born in Roman Britain to a middle-class family in about A.D. 390. When Patrick was a teenager, marauding Irish raiders attacked his home. Patrick was captured, taken to Ireland, and sold to an Irish king, who put him to work as a shepherd.
In his excellent book, How the Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill describes the life Patrick lived. Cahill writes, "The work of such slave-shepherds was bitterly isolated, months at a time spent alone in the hills."
Patrick had been raised in a Christian home, but he didn't really believe in God. But now—hungry, lonely, frightened, and bitterly cold—Patrick began seeking out a relationship with his heavenly Father. As he wrote in his Confession, "I would pray constantly during the daylight hours" and "the love of God . . . surrounded me more and more."
Six years after his capture, God spoke to Patrick in a dream, saying, "Your hungers are rewarded. You are going home. Look—your ship is ready."
What a startling command! If he obeyed, Patrick would become a fugitive slave, constantly in danger of capture and punishment. But he did obey—and God protected him. The young slave walked nearly two hundred miles to the Irish coast. There he boarded a waiting ship and traveled back to Britain and his family.
But, as you might expect, Patrick was a different person now, and the restless young man could not settle back into his old life. Eventually, Patrick recognized that God was calling him to enter a monastery. In time, he was ordained as a priest, then as a bishop.
Finally—thirty years after God had led Patrick away from Ireland—He called him back to the Emerald Isle as a missionary.
The Irish of the fifth century were a pagan, violent, and barbaric people. Human sacrifice was commonplace. Patrick understood the danger and wrote: "I am ready to be murdered, betrayed, enslaved—whatever may come my way."
Cahill notes that Patrick's love for the Irish "shines through his writings . . . He [worried] constantly for his people, not just for their spiritual but for their physical welfare."
Through Patrick, God converted thousands. Cahill writes, "Only this former slave had the right instincts to impart to the Irish a New Story, one that made sense of all their old stories and brought them a peace they had never known before." Because of Patrick, a warrior people "lay down the swords of battle, flung away the knives of sacrifice, and cast away the chains of slavery."
As it is with many Christian holidays, Saint Patrick's Day has lost much of its original meaning. Instead of settling for parades, cardboard leprechauns, and "the wearing of the green," we ought to recover our Christian heritage, celebrate the great evangelist, and teach our kids about this Christian hero.
Saint Patrick didn't chase the snakes out of Ireland, as many believe. Instead, the Lord used him to bring into Ireland a sturdy faith in the one true God—and to forever transform the Irish people.
Isaiah was Jewish. He belongs to no heretical split-off group.
I agree.
That's great! Then no more quoting him to prove chr*stianity.
You wrote:
“Uhhh no, that is YOUR DEFINITION of sects. In the beginning of Christian history, there was no such thing. There were only BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ.”
True. All Protestants like yourself came later. Hence, sects. Your sect is truly a Johnny-come-lately, however.
“Anyone who truly believed and had fatih were considered part of the church.”
That immediately excludes you because you do not have the faith of the Church, but the faith of a sectarian as you admitted when you acknowledged that you are a Protestant (Evangelical).
“Read the Bible, it’s there. Yours is a very recent definition ( thousands of
years after the fact ).”
No, ours is the Biblical one. God gave the Bible to us, not to any sect. There was only one Church not your sect. Your sect came many centuries later – perhaps even 1900 years later.
“And why am I not in the church founded by Christ ?”
You would have to answer that by expressing why you refuse to join Christ’s Church. The answer is only known to you. You admitted being a Protestant, thus you are no in Christ’s Church.
“Jesus said all who believe and are born again are children of God. Those are His words.
between what He said and your words, I’ll take His words thank you.”
He did not say that all who believed as they themselves saw fit were in His Church.
“And I am not part of the apostolic succession ? Why is that ?”
No, you are not part of it. Protestant sects cannot be for they have no maintained what was given – including Apostolic Succession. Your sect has no successors to the Apostles.
“I obey the words of St. Paul, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles.”
No, you do not – if you admit to being a Protestant it means you oppose the Church of ages.
“ In what way am I not part of the apostolic succession other than the fact that YOU SAID SO ?”
Simple. Your sect is a new Protestant sect. It probably does not even claim to have Apostolic Succession.
“Most likely you have made things up as you go along because your statement is not scriptural, and scripture is the standard by which we all must adhere to ( at least
that was my impression until I read your statement ).”
You do not seem to adhere to scripture. People who form or join sects simply do not.
“Sure that is what the scripture speaks of, but WHO is part of the Catholic Church ?”
Not you. And in these posts that is all that really matter regarding you. You admitting being in an Evangelical sect.
“That has been my question and you have not answered it, you simply repeat what you said over and over again. Scripture tells us that ALL WHO BELIEVE are children of God.”
What I repeat is the answer: an Evangelical cannot be a Catholic at the same time he is an Evangelical.
“Any other teaching ( e.g. yours for instance ) is extraneous.”
Evangelicalism is a sect. Sects are extraneous.
“Again, you keep assuming that I am part of a sect when you can’t even show from scripture how this is so.”
You admitted to being in a sect. End of story. All Evangelical sects are sects. End of story.
“As for Satan, I’m glad you mentioned him because when he tried to tempt the Lord, the Lord quoted SCRIPTURE
against him ? Where is your scriptural basis ?”
We have already seen that you do not understand nor have a desire to understand scripture. You already admitted in your own post that you are in a sect. Scripture is not needed when you make the admission yourself.
“And I am not of the same Church ?”
No. You admitted being in a sect.
“ I am just as Cattholic ( not ROMAN ) as he is and I adhere to the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.”
No, you do not. That is easily seen. Read Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers and then tell me you actually adhere to the teachings of the Fathers. No one in a sect can say that truthfully.
“Who do you want to quote in his era to show that I am not of the Catholic Church ? Ypu want to start with Ausgustine ( who was his
contemporaty ? ), Be my guest.... What did Augustine say for instance regarding who is part of the Catholic Church ? Since you don’t want to quote scripture, I believe you might want to quote a Church father. So, here’s my challenge, what did Augustine say ? ( Patrick had very
few things written down, but his contemporary Augustine had volumes. So maybe you might want to quote him to support your view).”
It is not necessary. You already admitted being in an Evangelical sect. I need not prove what you already admitted. Case closed. But I do think these words of St. Augustine do apply, in a sense, to you – especially after you admitted to attending sects and not attending a Catholic church: “And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” Against the Epistle of Manichaeus.
“YOU DON’T KNOW what their teachings and practices are, otherwise you would show me from their writings in what way people like me are not part of the catholic church. Yours are just WORDS FROM YOUR OWN KEYBOARD.”
No, actually I know what I am talking about. You have already admitted being in an Evangelical (Protestant) sect.
“Why not ? Here is what St, Paul said :“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” ( II TIMOTHY 3:16 ).
Did you read that ? ALL SCRIPTURE ! Is PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING US TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.”
None of that expresses sola scriptura. Yours is a common mistake among sectarians.
“If we don’t adhere to God’s word, what do we adhere to ? YOUR WORDS ( which thus far is all I have ). Not hank you….So, St. Paul is on my side, no yours. In this sense, in what way am I not Catholic and you are ?”
I am Catholic. Falsely claiming St. Paul believed in sola scriptura does not make you Catholic.
“Again I am not pluralistic and it is not anachronistic. Anyone who does not believe in Christ regardless of what church membership he is in
is NOT of the church. He might be by name ( just like a RINO is ), but he REALLY IS NOT. That’s pluralistic ? NOPE.”
You’re pluralistic and you are not Catholic. Your very claims are pluralistic.
“I find this ironic from someone who refuses to show me from scripture how it supports his viewpoint.
First, show me scripture, then I’ll believe you but not until.”
I have no reason to believe you will believe scripture presented to you.
“You have one of the most banal ways of using terms. If I were relativisitc, I would not have been grounded on a STANDARD to adhere to. But I have a standard — AN ABSOLUTE IF YOU WILL -— SCRIPTURE.”
I don’t think you do. After all sola scriptura is no where in scripture yet you are insisting it is true. How ironic. You falsely claim to follow a self-refuting theory.
“You don’t even know the meaning of the term — relativistic and here you are using it.”
I know the meaning of the term and your following of it is clear.
“Again, you belong to a denomination -— ROMAN. I am not denying you membership of the Catholic Church. If you believe in Jesus and Trust Him for your salvation, you are a member of the Catholic Church. But please ROMAN CATHOLIC IS NOT NECESSARILY CATHOLIC.”
I am not “Roman Catholic”. I am not in a denomination. Nor is there a denomination called “ROMAN”. I do deny that you are in the Catholic Church and you have admitted it when you said you belonged to an Evangelical sect.
“I know of too many priests and nuns who are members of the Roman Catholic Church who have lost their faith. In some Roman Catholic Universities,there are even priests who favor abortion. They are Catholic because they are members of the Roman Catholic Church ? Unless they repent, they are NOT and scripture backs me up.”
What scripture doesn’t back up is sola scriptura nor does it back up the idea that an Evangelical sect is the Catholic Church.
“NOPE, You don’t hold it solely as your own. I have admitted that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and obeyer of his scripture, therefore I am a member of
His church. HE TAUGHT THAT, You ought to obey what he taught. End of story.”
No. You have admitted your membership in a sect. You, therefore, cannot be Catholic.
“Well, show me from scripture what is then... I am waiting...is yuor response to my request forthcoming ?????”
It is clear you are not interested in scripture and merely insist it means what it doesn’t say. St. Paul never said anything in support of sola scriptura for instance but you falsely claim he did.
“Let me show you an example of Jesus Christ by quoting scripture ( since you seem to be averse to reading it ) :
Mark 9: 38-50 (September 27, 2009) John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward. SO, in the above example, some people were not members of the inner circle of the apostles. They however were believers in Jesus and were casting out Demons in His name.
Did Jesus reject them ? I am not going to answer that for you because the answer is clear from scripture.
YOU MY FRIEND, ARE COMMITTING THE SAME MISTAKE THAT JOHN DID.”
No, I am not making any mistake in this regard at all. I do not confuse God’s goodness to those even outside the Church with any supposed proof as to the Catholicity of those outside the Church. That is your mistake and it is a pretty common one among sectarians. Sectarians often feel the need to excuse their pluralism by citing the verses in question. They are just as confused about them as you are.
“Yes, we do hold opposing views, but you ahve not shown me how your views are correct in light of scripture ( which you claim to believe ).”
I need not do so. Since you admitted being in a sect you therefore cannot be Catholic.
“In what sense shoudl YOU be taken seriously ? Without a basis for determining our authority, all we have are your opinion ( which you are entitled
to of course ).”
No, actually we have your own admission that you are a sectarian. After you admitted that there simply was no reason for further disputation. Someone who is in a sect cannot be Catholic.
“Really ? How about this — YOU AREN’T EVEN reading scripture. I find it hard to take YOU seriously when you accuse someone of distorting scripture when you yourself
refuse to refer to it.”
Whether or not you take me seriously is completely immaterial. Once you admitted being a sectarian it was clear you are not a Catholic. The discussion is essentially over. All that is left is your apparent crying.
“There is another way around it — GOD’s WORD, not yours. I stand by that, not what you say.”
It makes more sense for you simply to accept your own word – you are a sectarian. You, therefore, cannot be a Catholic.
“And you have not shown how I have twisted and distorted things. In fact, the best description seems to fit your arguments, not mine.”
Actually I did show how you twisted things on one or two issues. That should suffice.
“I am Catholic and YOU ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC ( but if you believe in Jesus and Obey Him, you are also Catholic ).”
I am Catholic – you are a sectarian. I am not “Roman Catholic”.
“I do not belong to the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, but according to scripture I belong to the Catholic church.”
Incorrect. You belong to a sect of recent origin.
“You have not defined a sect scripturally, how can I take you seriously ?”
It doesn’t matter if you do. You’re in a sect.
“Only if the sect does not believe what Jesus teaches. You have NOT shown that I do not believe in what Jesus teaches, Show me first, and then maybe you have a point but not until. We should first start from something we both claim to adhere to — SCRIPTURE. Start there. I await....”
No sect believes what Jesus teaches in toto. Sects believe only portions.
“I find this amusing since you have thus far, not shown me ONE IOTA of scripture.”
Again, I have no reason to believe that you would understand or respect scripture since you have already shown that you use a heretical notion in regard to it: sola scriptura.
“Shall we play this child’s game ? OK, I will indulge you — NO I AM NOT IN A SECT ( Ihave already preprogrammed this in my macro so that I just hit a button everytime I read the above statement ).”
You admitted being in an Evangelical sect. Changing your story now simply won’t change the truth.
“Your post #67 DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION and your subsequent posts simply repeat the same statement without scriptural proof.”
The specific question you asked – and falsely claimed I never answered - was answered in post #67.
“What is that statement ? “you-are-not-in-the-church”.
Yeah, I read that already, but where’s your scriptural proof ? NADA.”
Again, you already admitted being in a sect. No further proof is needed. And in any case you were still making things up out of thin air.
“And what belief is that that I hold that St. Patrick does not hold ? You accuse me of every dirty word in the book without showing any single scriptural proof and then
you go on and claim that Patrick would do this or that without even having spoken to Patrick, much less cited anything he wrote or said to back up your claim and oh how you would drone on.....”
I accused you of no “dirty word”.
“OK, I apologize. Let’s go back to Latin, in what sense is your knowledge of Latin proof that Patrick is solely yours ?”
I never claimed that. Again, you’re making things up.
“I am askign a question IN ORDER to understand your logic. If what I said is not what you believe, the least you could do is explain to me how Latin comes into the picture regarding how one can claim closeness to someone’s faith.”
What I said was clear enough. The problem rests on your reading not my writing.
“ I await ( and if you can quote
scripture, so much the better because I hold that as my standard ).”
I don’t believe you do since sola scriptura is unbiblical.
“He was Catholic as Am I.”
He was Catholic. You’re not.
“You don’t have to belive it, I am not worrying myself to sleep over what you believe. I only worry about disobeying God’s word, which thus far, you have not
shown have.”
Again, sola scriptura is not biblical.
“Let’s clarify things YOU call it a sect, I don’t. I challenged you many times to show me from scripture how I belong to a sect and you have thus far not shown anything. How can I be convicted of something you have not proven ?
Just because YOU SAID SO, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.”
You belong to a sect. Evangelical sects are sects. They are not the Catholic Church.
“I DO NOT admit to being in a sect as YOU DEFINE IT.”
You are a member of a sect.
“OK, let me repeat my question and please do not answer me with a one liner :Let’s go back to Latin, in what sense is your knowledge of Latin proof that Patrick is solely yours ?”
Again, why do you make things up no one claimed? I never claimed that my “knowledge of Latin” is proof that Patrick is “solely” mine. Being honest is not difficult. Try it.
“I am asking a question IN ORDER to understand your logic. If what I said is not what you believe, the least you could do is explain to me how Latin comes into the picture regarding how one can claim closeness to someone’s faith. I await ( and if you can quote scripture, so much the better because I hold that as my standard ).”
What I said was clear enough yet you are apparently incapable of even repeating the words or idea I expressed. What is the point of trying to explain what is so obvious that further explanation is not needed? Also, if you can’t get what I wrote right why should I assume you’ll understand anything written to you?
“You have a reason my friend — GO TO SCRIPTURE. Show me from scripture how I “obviously” ( your words, not mine ) distort the truth.”
There you go again distorting what the truth. I said, “Anyone who so obviously distorts what someone else said would certainly not seem to be predisposed to do so recognize the truth.” So, now you want me to “GO TO SCRIPTURE. Show me from scripture how I “obviously” ( your words, not mine ) distort the truth.” What you distorted was the truth of what I had written.
“If I were not predisposed to recognize the truth, I would not be asking you.”
I have no reason to believe that is the case. Someone predisposed to the truth would not continuously distort someone else’s words in post after post. That is what you have done.
“I have made this challenge to you several times but all I receive is silence — NO SCRIPTURE, NO EXEGESIS, NOTHING.”
None is required. You already admitted the truth: you’re in a sect.
“No wonder you’re not getting anywhere and have to resort to repetitions as in the following :”
What I posted is true: you’re in a sect.
“And the onus is to show me from Christ’s words how I am not a member of that one church. I am waiting....”
On such onus rests on me because you have already admitted being in a sect.
“( NOTE, I CUT THE REST OF YOUR STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMPLY THE SAME REPETITIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN
AS IN : I-am-in-the-Church. You-are-in-a-sect. )”
You’re in a sect. You admitted it.
“Which brings us to an interesting question — What gospel did St. Paul preach and in what way do I not believe in the gospel he preached ?”
You believe in a false gospel – the gospel of a sect.
“Again, show me from scripture ( you can start with the epistle to the Galatians since we are already there ).”
I need not show anything. You already being in a sect and of course a sect teaches a false gospel.
“St. Patrick practiced it but his grandfather ( A PRIEST ) chose not to. So, St. Patrick also knew that it was an option granted by God. He had the gift of celibacy
and I recognize that, but St. Paul clearly said that not everyone has that gift. St. Peter did not have it, yet that did not stop him from being an effective minister for
Christ.”
No. Bishops routinely did not marry. It was not an option for St. Patrick as a bishop. And it was not an option for him after ordination to the priesthood.
“ OK, we both agree on that definition, but let’s go back to the beginning of how celibacy became an issue — you ask me a question about celibacy, I believe I answered it,
which is to say -— St. Paul gave Christians the FREEDOM ( within the constraints of the Law ) to practice it. I admire people who are celibate, but I do not begrudge those who want to be celibate from practicing it, just as I do not condemn those who do not have this gift from marrying. SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT ? Patrick was celibate... what follows ?”
It is obvious. If you have to ask the question, then you won’t understand the answer.
“What do you mean IF St. Peter was married ? HE WAS !!
St. Paul mentioned that he was. The gospels mentioned his mother in law ( see Mark 1:29-31)”
Once again you resort to distortions. I never said St. Peter was NOT married. I said, “If St. Peter was still married at the time.” St. Paul does not tell us St. Peter was STILL married. Neither does Mark tell us that. If you’re thinking of 1 Cor 9:5 you might want to look up the Greek before you make such an assumption.
“If Bishops want to be celibate, good for them, they have the gift. But please, NO SCRIPTURE tells us that those who are married are any less qualified to be Bishops.”
St. Patrick was celibate nonetheless. Catholic bishops were even before his time.
“Sorry, scripture does not teach that.”
It hints at it only. It is true nonetheless. This is what Catholic believe and we see once again that you are not Catholic.
“Mary and Joseph had 4 sons and AT LEAST 2 sisters.
It’s all there in scripture.”
Actually it isn’t. Your mistake is a common one among sectarians. Catholics don’t make that mistake. http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
“And so, what’s your point ?”
St. Patrick was Catholic and you are not.
“They were celiabte, what then ? How does that relate to whether I can claim that Patrick is my brother in the faith ?”
You are not Catholic. You admitted to being in a sect.
“So, what’s your point about celibacy ? Many church leaders and Bishops were married... So ? Because Patrick chose a different option ... then what ?”
Celibacy is common among Catholic clergy. Is it common in your sect?
“NOPE, they were to be MATURE Christians. Read what St. Paul wrote again to Timothy in his first epistle VERSE 6 : He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.
READ THAT ? HE MUST NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT.”
There you go again distorting things. They were all first generation converts. Christianity was new and their culture had been little affected by it.
“How long must one be a Christian in order to be considered not new ?”
They were still new Christians. You question is meaningless.
“St. Paul was with the Ephesian Church ( which Timothy pastored ) for over 3 years. Timothy took over years later. ENOUGH TIME FOR BELIEVERS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED NEW.
So, your point does not hold. St. Paul’s own words and history tells us that these Bishops (who must be the husband of one wife ) MUST NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT.”
And they were still new Christians and Christianity itself was new and had not yet affected the culture of the people to any great extent.
“Really ? You have not shown me where my arguments fail.”
I have. Mostly I simply let the failure speak for itself.
“Which Church is that ? That would be the ROMAN Catholic Church which made it a requriement HUNDREDS of YEARS after the fact.”
No, the Church always chose its servants. St. Patrick was Catholic. You’re in a sect.
“But that is not what scripture teaches. I do not adhere to what happened and develop hundreds of years later, I WANT WHAT GOD INSPIRED THE APOSTLES TO TEACH. What happened hundreds of years later could be man-made. The further you are from the early church, the more the tendency for your opinions to take precedence.”
So you are a member of a modern sect? Once again we see your relativism.
“But let’s say St. Paul was celibate and Eusebius was wrong, what then ? THE FACT IS HE DID NOT MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL CLERGY TO BE CELIBATE. HE CLEARLY TAUGHT THAT BISHOPS SHOULD BE THE HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE ( and oh yeah, don’t give me that argument about New Christians again because Paul also gave the requirement that they should NOT BE NEW CONVERTS ).”
And yet they were all new Christians.
“Hence 3 requirements you should note from the celibate Paul : 1) MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE; 2) MUST BE ABLE TO MANAGE HIS CHILDREN AND HOUSEHOLD WELL; 3) MUST NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT.”
And yet they were all new Christians.
“Therefore what follows ? I don’t see how that supports your argument at all given that celibacy is AN OPTION, given that many Bishops in the past were married,
given that St. Peter was married.”
St. Patrick was celibate. He was Catholic. You’re in a sect. Nothing has changed.
“Well, good for them. As St. Paul said -— celibacy is an option, some have the gift, some do not. I do not look down on those who do not have it as they can
also be effective ministers in their own way. I also note that many former Roman Catholic priests have been blessed by having families and as a result of their experience, have been effective ministers of the Lord as well. I know one named Anthony Pezzota, formerly of the Salesian order who is a very effective minister of the gospel who is now married.”
He is not an effective minister of the gospel. He is a sectarian. Sectarians do not teach the gospel. http://shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=169
“Great missionaries such as Hudson Taylor ( who brought the gospel to most of China ), Adoniram Judson, who brought the gospel to Burma, and many hundreds of
others were married. I do not see how being married prevents one from being effective in the Lord given that the ability to manage one’s household is ONE PROOF according to St. Paul of ability to manage the church.”
Taylor had to ship his own children home to England because he couldn’t be a missionary and take care of his own children. When his wife died he was so grief stricken that he became ill and had to return to England (so much for the mission!). He remarried there, started having children again and returned to China. He had to return to England AGAIN when the children lost their governess. I know his descendents still labor among the Chinese OUTSIDE of China, but the Catholic clergy in China never left because of problem with wives or children and are still there today.
“I already agreed to that, you’re just repeating what I said.. The only difference we have is in the DEFINITION of Catholic. I maintain that it is NOT LIMITED to those of the ROMAN persuasion,.”
I am not Roman. I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick. You are not Catholic. You are a sectarian. You admitted it as soon as you said you were part of an Evangelical sect.
I will simply cut and paste the summarized portion of what you wrote because a lot of what you write are simply REPETITIONS (i.e., VARIATIONS ON THE You-are-not-part-of-his-church variety ).
FOR INSTANCE, you said :
I am not Roman. I am Catholic.
Actually by your admission, you follow the Pope as your absolute head, therefore you BELONG to the Roman Catholic Sect.
Nothing wrong with that in my book, However that does nothing for you unless you have true faith in Jesus Christ and obey His words. Being a Roman Catholic DOES NOT guarantee membership in Christ’s Catholic Church.
Do you really believe that someone who claims to be Catholic and yet votes to kill babies in the womb belong to Christ’s church ?
Jesus Said : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and yet not do the things I say ?”.
This implies that all who call Him Lord HAVE to obey Him.
I DO. Which means I belong to His Church REGARDLESS of how you define it.
As for you, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you belong to His church to, but seeing how uncharitable you are.... I have to withhold my conclusion.
YOU SAID:
So was St. Patrick. You are not Catholic.
Yes, You have repeated that ad nausseum and your reason for that is because I don’t join your particular denomination.
Sorry, The Bible does not tell me that I have to join your sect/denomination in order to be saved.
Jesus said : “You must be born of the spirit to belong to the Kingdom of God. Whosoever BELIEVES IN ME HAS LIFE.”
St. Paul’s letters to the Churches call the members saints by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ. I QUALIFY BASED ON THAT, not based on what you say. Between Paul and vladimir, I’ll take Paul thank you.
You are ADDING to his requirements.
YOU SAID
You are a sectarian.
Actually you are the one who are. Why ? Because you are the one denying what Jesus EXPLICITLY taught. Not me.
You are insisting that your particular brand of sectarianism holds the truth when you have not shown one iota of scripture to prove it ( the same scripture you claim to believe ).
YOU SAID:
You admitted it as soon as you said you were part of an Evangelical sect.
THE WORD EVANGELICAL is DERIVED from the word -— GOSPEL ( Evangel ). Hence, I accept the Gospel of Jesus’ Apostles.
THAT MEANS I AM INCLUDED IN THE CHURCH notwithstanding what you said.
The gospel ( Evangel ) is the good news that Christ came into the world to die for man’s sins and all who accept Him as Lord and Savior are children of God ( read John’s gospel Chapter 3 ).
So, yes I am proudly evangelical and proudly biblical. That is NOT a sect unless you want to call belief in the gospel and the Bible a sect.
Let’s not be caught up with terms here. The important thing is what Christ taught, not what you said.
( more to come regarding celibacy ).
YOU SAID :
What I said was clear enough yet you are apparently incapable of even repeating the words or idea I expressed. What is the point of trying to explain what is so obvious that further explanation is not needed? Also, if you can’t get what I wrote right why should I assume you’ll understand anything written to you?
Because you HAVE NOT explained it to my satisfaction.
Again with feeling -— you said that Patrick is yours and not mine because both you and him understand and worship in Latin.
I asked you a simple question -— GIVEN that Patrick lived in the Roman era, and given that the ROMAN world spoke Latin — why would he not speak Latin ?
And how does your being able to speak Latin prove that Patrick is yours and not for others ?
THAT was my question. So please, do not try to avoid answering the question.
YOU SAID:
“Mary and Joseph had 4 sons and AT LEAST 2 sisters.
It’s all there in scripture.”
Actually it isn’t. Your mistake is a common one among sectarians. Catholics don’t make that mistake. http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
I read that site and I am familiar with the arguments presented there. BTW, you pointed me to a ROMAN CATHOLIC site, which shows you really are ROMAN Catholic. So why not simply admit it ?
In each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its NORMAL and LITERAL meaning is a physical brother.
There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used so we can dispense with that idea.
Further, if they were Jesus’ brethren in the faith, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.
If I am surprised by a person who heretofore, did not show something extraordinary because I knew his background, I would mention his blood relatives ( people he grew up with, his immediate family ). It is FORCING a foreign idea on a text to say that these people were surprised by asking — aren’t these his brethren in the faith ??
A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. I have heard priests and nuns expound this to me as well.
The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?
There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.
You wrote:
“I will simply cut and paste the summarized portion of what you wrote because a lot of what you write are simply REPETITIONS (i.e., VARIATIONS ON THE You-are-not-part-of-his-church variety ).”
And you are still not a member of the Catholic Church. You admitted to being in a Protestant sect.
“Actually by your admission, you follow the Pope as your absolute head, therefore you BELONG to the Roman Catholic Sect.”
Incorrect. I am not Roman. My Church is the Catholic Church. And a Church cannot be a sect. You are in a sect. You are a Protestant. You have admitted it.
“Nothing wrong with that in my book, However that does nothing for you unless you have true faith in Jesus Christ and obey His words. Being a Roman Catholic DOES NOT guarantee membership in Christ’s Catholic Church.”
Being a Catholic means you’re in the Catholic Church. I’m in it. You’re not. You belong to a puny, recent sect started by a mere man.
“Do you really believe that someone who claims to be Catholic and yet votes to kill babies in the womb belong to Christ’s church ?”
Your question is irrelevant: 1) you’re not Catholic in any case as you yourself admitted when you said you’re in a Protestant sect; 2) Your question doesn’t apply to me so it seems immaterial; 3) St. Patrick was Catholic.
“Jesus Said : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and yet not do the things I say ?”.This implies that all who call Him Lord HAVE to obey Him.”
Yet that’s not what Protestants do.
“I DO. Which means I belong to His Church REGARDLESS of how you define it.”
I don’t think you do obey Him. I think you really believe you do, but don’t actually do it. Take your own previous question about abortion. Jesus says exactly nothing about abortion yet you imply He opposes it. I agree with you on that score: That is the Catholic teaching. It is also a Catholic teaching that birth control is immoral. Jesus says nothing about birth control. Can a Christian practice birth control morally? The Catholic Church has always said no. Protestant sects overwhelmingly teach otherwise. None of them is Catholic. None of them.
“As for you, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you belong to His church to, but seeing how uncharitable you are.... I have to withhold my conclusion.”
I won’t lose any sleep over your views of me. People should not lie to themselves and claim they – as a Protestant – are really Catholic. You probably violate Catholic teachings on any number of points and will use sola scriptura as your defense. Remember, where does Jesus say anything against abortion? Right, no where. That is the Church’s teaching and it is correct. Jesus, however, says exactly NOTHING about it anywhere except through the Church’s constant teaching.
“Yes, You have repeated that ad nausseum and your reason for that is because I don’t join your particular denomination.”
I’ve never been in a denomination. You are in a denomination. You even told us it is Evangelical. That very word used with a sect tells us it is a Protestant sect. A Protestant denomination. I have never been in, and never will be in, a sect or denomination. I’m Catholic.
“Sorry, The Bible does not tell me that I have to join your sect/denomination in order to be saved.”
You must be Catholic to be Catholic. To be Evangelical – as you admitted you are – is to be sectarian.
“Jesus said : “You must be born of the spirit to belong to the Kingdom of God. Whosoever BELIEVES IN ME HAS LIFE.”St. Paul’s letters to the Churches call the members saints by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ. I QUALIFY BASED ON THAT, not based on what you say. Between Paul and vladimir, I’ll take Paul thank you.”
No, I don’t think you do take St. Paul. St. Paul was writing to my Church, not your sect. He lived in a world where Christ had sent my Church, the Catholic Church, into it to preach, teach and baptize. Your sect was not yet a gleam in Satan’s eye.
“You are ADDING to his requirements.”
No. I simply live as Catholics have. You don’t.
“.Actually you are the one who are. Why ? Because you are the one denying what Jesus EXPLICITLY taught. Not me.”
Nope. Between the two of us only you are Protestant while I am a Catholic. You are a sectarian.
“You are insisting that your particular brand of sectarianism holds the truth when you have not shown one iota of scripture to prove it ( the same scripture you claim to believe ).”
You admitted to be sectarian. The argument is over except for your crying over your loss.
“THE WORD EVANGELICAL is DERIVED from the word -— GOSPEL ( Evangel ). Hence, I accept the Gospel of Jesus’ Apostles.
THAT MEANS I AM INCLUDED IN THE CHURCH notwithstanding what you said.”
No. The use of the word “Evangelical” denotes a particular strain of Protestant sects. It says nothing about truth or Catholicity. It simply denotes sectarianism.
“The gospel ( Evangel ) is the good news that Christ came into the world to die for man’s sins and all who accept Him as Lord and Savior are children of God ( read John’s gospel Chapter 3 ).”
No, actually the word is simply something artificially applied to dozens and dozens of competing bodies of Protestant sects within a general strain of sectarianism.
“So, yes I am proudly evangelical and proudly biblical. That is NOT a sect unless you want to call belief in the gospel and the Bible a sect.”
You are in a sect. You do not believe in the gospel, but in a sectarian twisting of the gospel that dates back to the 16th century.
“Let’s not be caught up with terms here. The important thing is what Christ taught, not what you said.”
The important thing is that you are in a sect. St. Patrick was Catholic. I am Catholic. You are in a sect. Period. You admitted it when you admitted that you were in a Protestant sect.
“Because you HAVE NOT explained it to my satisfaction.”
And yet a Catholic would already know and understand. Once again we see that you are a sectarian and not a Catholic.
“Again with feeling -— you said that Patrick is yours and not mine because both you and him understand and worship in Latin.”
I did not say that. Again, I think you should read the post in question. Read it very closely. You have refined your false accusation, but it is still false. If you had simply been honest from the beginning with what I said you would not now need to refine your false charge (perhaps in hope that it would stick better than the original false charge?).
“I asked you a simple question -— GIVEN that Patrick lived in the Roman era, and given that the ROMAN world spoke Latin — why would he not speak Latin ?”
Your question is not only immaterial but I think you are making up something else. When did you ever make the point that, “GIVEN that Patrick lived in the Roman era, and given that the ROMAN world spoke Latin — why would he not speak Latin ?” I don’t recall you making such a statement or asking such a question before. I just went through all the posts and sure enough this is the very first time you are making this point: ““GIVEN that Patrick lived in the Roman era, and given that the ROMAN world spoke Latin — why would he not speak Latin ?” For some inexplicable reason my very simple point – irrefutably true and undeniably simple – has made you literally invent one phony question after another based upon premises that have nothing to do with what I said.
“And how does your being able to speak Latin prove that Patrick is yours and not for others ?”
Again, I never said it did.
“THAT was my question. So please, do not try to avoid answering the question.”
Sorry, but it is much more amusing just watching you flop around on the deck making stuff up. What I said is clear enough.
“I read that site and I am familiar with the arguments presented there. BTW, you pointed me to a ROMAN CATHOLIC site, which shows you really are ROMAN Catholic. So why not simply admit it ?”
The site is called catholic.com. It is hosted by Catholic Answers. It is a Catholic website run by lay Catholics. They’re in the same Church as St. Patrick. You’re in a sect.
“In each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its NORMAL and LITERAL meaning is a physical brother.”
And yet that is not how it was always used – as pointed out in the article.
“There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used so we can dispense with that idea.”
No, actually we can’t. As I just mentioned – and as the article points out – there were more words and usages involved than you’re pretending.
“Further, if they were Jesus’ brethren in the faith, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother?”
Would you expect Mary to be alone? More than one of them is described as the sons of Cleopas/Alphius and another woman named Mary (not the Virgin Mary). The article discusses that too I believe. I guess you don’t know as much as you think you know. No surprise there.
“There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.”
Actually there are several things. Did you read the article? In Jesus’ culture would his YOUNGER brothers speak to Him the way they did? No, not likely. Would Mary be given over to the care of John the Apostle by Jesus if there were younger brothers to care for her? No, not likely.
“If I am surprised by a person who heretofore, did not show something extraordinary because I knew his background, I would mention his blood relatives ( people he grew up with, his immediate family ). It is FORCING a foreign idea on a text to say that these people were surprised by asking — aren’t these his brethren in the faith ??”
No. Again you didn’t read the article.
“A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. I have heard priests and nuns expound this to me as well.”
Why are you plagiarizing from here? http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html
Here’s what the website said:
“A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?”
How sad. Not only do you make up stuff about what I posted but you steal things from others and pass it off as your own.
Why respond to the rest when it is simply stuff you stole from elsewhere? Apparently sectarians think nothing of such deeds. How pathetic.
YOU WROTE:
Being a Catholic means you’re in the Catholic Church. I’m in it. You’re not. You belong to a puny, recent sect started by a mere man.
And because you said so it is so ? NAH, I’d rather obey scripture. What you say counts for nothing ( in your words — PUNY ). What scripture says counts for everything.
YOU WROTE:
Incorrect. I am not Roman. My Church is the Catholic Church.
Well, welcome to the club. I am a Catholic as well, even if yo deny it.
YOU WROTE:
And a Church cannot be a sect.
Uh huh, then I am not in one as well.
YOU SAID:
You are in a sect. You are a Protestant. You have admitted it.
I AM BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN, THAT IS WHAT I ADMIT.
YOU WROTE:
No. The use of the word “Evangelical” denotes a particular strain of Protestant sects. It says nothing about truth or Catholicity. It simply denotes sectarianism.
That is YOUR DEFINITION, it isn’t in the Bible. Show me first from scripture that your definition applies and I’ll believe you but not until.
YOU WROTE:
There you go again distorting things. They were all first generation converts. Christianity was new and their culture had been little affected by it.
So ? how does being a first gene4ration convert make one a new Christian ? How long does one have to believe before you take the NEW away ?
You are simply ADDING Your own definition of new. If you have believed for a certain period of time, and have been shown to be mature in your faith, you are NOT a new convert and THAT is what Paul was talking about.
YOU SAID:
They were still new Christians. You question is meaningless.
Actually what is meaningless is your insistence that Christians who are mature in the faith ( Paul’s words — NOT A NEW CONVERT ) who are also heads of households, are now somehow “new” in your eyes.
You wrote:
“And because you said so it is so ? NAH, I’d rather obey scripture. What you say counts for nothing ( in your words — PUNY ). What scripture says counts for everything.”
Scripture says nothing about sola scriptura. What I said is true because it is true.
“Well, welcome to the club. I am a Catholic as well, even if yo deny it.”
No, actually you’re not. You admitted it - you’re in a sect.
“Uh huh, then I am not in one as well.”
You’re not in a Church. You’re in a sect. Those are the facts.
“I AM BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN, THAT IS WHAT I ADMIT.”
No Protestant is truly Bible believing. Notice: sola scriptura is not in the Bible.
“That is YOUR DEFINITION, it isn’t in the Bible. Show me first from scripture that your definition applies and I’ll believe you but not until.”
No, you won’t believe me no matter what. Anyone who posts something they didn’t write and passes it off as their own simply isn’t honest enough for what you suggested.
YOU SAID:
Actually there are several things. Did you read the article? In Jesus’ culture would his YOUNGER brothers speak to Him the way they did? No, not likely.
Why not ? The Jews tell me all the time that there were younger siblings who quarrel and argue with older siblings. I would not be surprised if his unbelieving brothers did that as well.
YOU SAID:
Would Mary be given over to the care of John the Apostle by Jesus if there were younger brothers to care for her? No, not likely.
Here is the most reasonable explanation — The answer is found in John 7. In verse 5 we read “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.” The gospels make it clear that Jesus’ siblings did not believe in Him until after the resurrection.
We know that Jesus appeared to James, for 1 Corinthians 15:7 says “After that He was seen by James.” It is probable that this event is what finally inspired James to believe in His brother as the Son of God.
At the time Jesus hung on the cross, His siblings did not believe in Him. It stands to reason, then, that He would ask one of His followers to care for His mother. He selected John, his closest friend who is consistently referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved,” to take on this responsibility. We can assume that if James had believed in Jesus at this time, He would have received this responsibility.
Joseph by that time, had already died.
YOU SAID:
No. Again you didn’t read the article.
I did, and the article is not convincing. It is trying to change the plain meaning of the word Bother to make it mean something else.
YOU WROTE:
Why respond to the rest when it is simply stuff you stole from elsewhere? Apparently sectarians think nothing of such deeds. How pathetic.
I am COPYING an argument which I believe to be correct. Nothing wrong with that. If someone can say something better than me, I quote him/her. THE ARGUMENT STILL NEEDS TO BE REFUTED AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.
And you have not dealt with the text that says Joseph did not have relations ( union ) with Mary UNTIL after the birth of Jesus.
You have to deal with the argument. Have you ? NO.
You simply dismiss it as if the argument ( which is convincing ) is not relevant.
HOW SAD.
YOU WROTE
You wrote:
Scripture says nothing about sola scriptura. What I said is true because it is true.
Actually St. Paul tells us (and I said this already ) that ALL SCRIPTURE IS PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS ( 1 Timothy 3:16 ).
And scripture says nothing about YOUR definition of who is or is not in the church.
YOU SAID:
No, actually you’re not. You admitted it - you’re in a sect.
NOPE, I admitted only one thing -— to be a follower of Christ and His word.
YOU are the one calling me a member of a sect. But that is based on YOUR DEFINITION, not the Bible.
YOU SAID:
You’re not in a Church. You’re in a sect. Those are the facts.
These are your definition of the facts, not the facts.
YOU SAID:
No Protestant is truly Bible believing. Notice: sola scriptura is not in the Bible.
And the word TRINITY is not in the Bible as well, yet assume you believe it.
Just because the word is not in the Bible does not mean that it is not taught.
And notice that your definition of what makes for membership in the Church is not in the Bible as well.
YOU SAID:
No, you won’t believe me no matter what.
Because you have not shown me from scripture where it is you are right. YOU count for nothing, scripture counts for everything.
YOU SAID:
Anyone who posts something they didn’t write and passes it off as their own simply isn’t honest enough for what you suggested.
I never said what I wrote was my own words, you are putting words in my mouth.
THE ARGUMENT MIRRORS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. So, deal with THAT ARGUMENT AND DON’T AVOID IT.
You wrote:
“So ? how does being a first gene4ration convert make one a new Christian ? How long does one have to believe before you take the NEW away ?”
They were new Christians. It’s just that simple.
“You are simply ADDING Your own definition of new. If you have believed for a certain period of time, and have been shown to be mature in your faith, you are NOT a new convert and THAT is what Paul was talking about.”
They would be new Christians.
“Actually what is meaningless is your insistence that Christians who are mature in the faith ( Paul’s words — NOT A NEW CONVERT ) who are also heads of households, are now somehow “new” in your eyes.”
They were new Christians. And you still passed off someone else’s work as your own.
Chuck Colson is correct about Patrick. I lived in Ireland three years, and there St Patrick’s Day was celebrated in the Churches (Roman Catholic & Church of Ireland). His ‘Confession’ is worth a read.
A quote from it...”But I entreat those who believe in and fear God, whoever deigns to examine or receive this document composed by the obviously unlearned sinner Patrick in Ireland, that nobody shall ever ascribe to my ignorance any trivial thing that I achieved or may have expounded that was pleasing to God, but accept and truly believe that it would have been the gift of God. And this is my confession before I die.”
You wrote:
“I am COPYING an argument which I believe to be correct. Nothing wrong with that. If someone can say something better than me, I quote him/her. THE ARGUMENT STILL NEEDS TO BE REFUTED AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.”
You stole someone else’s work and passed it off as your own. How pathetic. And now you make excuses for what you did. Of course.
YOU SAID :
Once again you resort to distortions. I never said St. Peter was NOT married. I said, “If St. Peter was still married at the time.” St. Paul does not tell us St. Peter was STILL married. Neither does Mark tell us that. If you’re thinking of 1 Cor 9:5 you might want to look up the Greek before you make such an assumption.
You tell me what the Greek says because the text is plain -— St. Paul talks not only about Peter being married, he talked about other apostles being married as well.
YOU SAID:
St. Patrick was celibate nonetheless.
Again, my question is this — SO WHAT ?
How does that make him solely yours to claim and not others of similar faith. THIS QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED.
YOU SAID:
Catholic bishops were even before his time.
The problem is you do not go far back enough. The fact is I enumerated a list of Bishops who WERE MARRIED.
The online encyclopedia says this :
“It is undisputed that the earliest Christian leaders were very largely married men.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibate_clergy#Clerical_continence_in_the_Christian_Church
I have no reason to doubt this as Eusebius of Caesaria, the church historian mentions it as well.
He also mentions this in Chapter 30 of his Church History :
For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage.
I will not dispute that many Bishops were unmarried. But please, many were as well.
YOU SAID:
It hints at it only. It is true nonetheless. This is what Catholic believe and we see once again that you are not Catholic.
This NOT what scripture teaches sorry.
I want more than hints ( because what is a hint to you is most often extrapolation ). I want PLAIN TEACHING of the variety St. Paul wrote to Timothy. THAT Is what I adhere to, not some unmentioned hint that you claim is there but isn’t.
The church should be following scripture because scripture is of God. If the church is to be the true church it has to be faithful to what God’s word teaches. your point is NOT TAKEN.
YOU SAID:
They would be new Christians.
SAYS YOU.
YOU SAID:
They were new Christians. And you still passed off someone else’s work as your own.
BASED ON YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF NEW and you have not even remotely addressed the argument I presented.
You wrote:
“I never said what I wrote was my own words, you are putting words in my mouth.”
No. You posted someone else’s material as if it was your own. I’m not putting any word in your mouth. You put someone else’s work in your post.
“THE ARGUMENT MIRRORS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. So, deal with THAT ARGUMENT AND DON’T AVOID IT.”
You took someone else’s work. Don’t avoid it now.
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.