Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
I do not understand what you mean when you say It is interesting to me that Christians believe in God but he doesn’t speak to his children anymore.
The WORD from Genesis through Revelation, is the Heavenly Father speaking. Later in Amos 8:11 The Heavenly Father says "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that *I* will send a famine in the land, NOT a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
So given the Heavenly Father promises in Amos 3:7 He will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets, He fulfills that promise through Amos by telling those who would read his prophets what is going to take place and why.
The Heavenly Father does indeed speak to US through His prophets, note what Peter pens in IIPeter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
I might add that the whole chapter of Peters writing would be a promise fulfilled from Amos 3:7 in revealing secrets. Peter says in this chapter that there are three different heaven/earth ages and there is an obvious famine through out the land these days of those claiming preaching from the Heavenly Father exactly what Peter instructs.
So it is an 'open' secret all laid out but a famine of hearing the WORD is world spread.
;)
It is a heck of a place to start. But from what I seen, Catholics just need John 21:25 and Matthew 16:18 and that is licence to make up anything they like
Catholics wrote the whole thing, why would we restrict ourselves to s few chapters.....listen real close, for the first 1,500 years of Christianity...all Christians were Catholic.....when Columbus departed for unknown destinations, everyone on his ships was Catholic, any Christian in Europe, Asia, Africa, and wherelse, was Catholic. When good old Martin Luther, (a Catholic) came out of the woodwork in the 1500’s, everything went down hill. The church was challenged, not just in the bahavior of some of its members (justified) but in her teachings and dogmas ( not justified)... Luther then proceeded to lead people away from the true church of Christ, the Catholic church. He was responsible for the loss of more souls than any other person in history.........and he died considering himself to be a Catholic.......pathetic
LOL Wonder why the Heavenly Father would allow such a beast as Martin Luther to send so many cough cough to .ell and NEVER utter one word to warn His children to be on the look out for old Martin.
No wonder 'supposed' Christians can't rely upon the canonized WORD alone, it has no mention of the devil Martin. The folly the folly the folly.....
Do Christians Need Only the Bible?
[T]radition and [t]radition (and just what is the difference?) [Ecumenical]
What is Holy Tradition?
Why Does The Catholic Church Accept Traditions? [Ecumenical]
A Return to Tradition: A new interest in old ways takes root in Catholicism and many other faiths
Scripture Is Tradition
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
The Importance of Tradition Today
The Place of Custom and Tradition
Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Holy Tradition: The Road That Leads Home
On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
Recovering the Catholic Moral Tradition: The notion of happiness
Tradition and Reform
APOSTOLIC TRADITION: Consistency or Contradiction?
Can Vatican II be interpreted in the light of Tradition?
The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
Pope praises Ukrainian-Catholic Church for upholding Sacred Tradition, communion with Seat of Peter
The Shadow Tradition - Magisterium vs Murk
[Catholic] Tradition catching on with Baptists [Ecumenical Ash Wed. Service]
Pope will preside at Ash Wednesday Mass, procession; act will renew ancient tradition
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II
I wrote:
Jesus never said, “If you abide in whatever My successor, Peter and all who sit in his seat, teaches from His divinely appointed office, you will be My disciples indeed.”
You replied:
He did say essentially the same thing:
After that you quoted Luke 22:29-32 in support of your assertion, I assume from the Douay Version.
First of all, you have conveniently omitted the fact that there is a break in the context here, as evident in Greek as in English: Verses 29-30 syntactically belong to the preceding not succeeding words. The words are addressed to the disciples of Christ, all of them, and not just to Peter.
Second, in verses 31-32, which do refer specifically and personally to Peter, Jesus is speaking of the sin of denial, betrayal, blasphemy, and unbelief into which Peter would fall later that very night. His point is simple, that when Peter returns to faith in the Christ and in His word - for which He tells Peter, He Himself prayed - that it is His will that Peter would strengthen his own weak and fallen brethren as indeed he himself will have been strengthened. For which Christian pastor is this not a duty? In fact, for which ordinary Christian is this not a duty? There is nothing here that is directed to Peter alone as something he and he alone can and and must do.
After quoting the Luke 22 passage you say:
Note, in the Kingdom, it is the apostles who are sifted as wheat, but Peter alone is to confirm the brethren.
This is a perfect example not of exegesis, the practice of deriving the plain, clear, and correct meaning of the text, but eisegesis, the practice of reading a meaning into the text that is not there. This is the very thing Peter himself years later would warn all Christians not to do: “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, for prophecy never came by the will of men, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:19-21)
This goes to the heart of what SOLA SCRIPTURA means ... and it is a thoroughly Scriptural doctrine. Scripture interprets Scripture, not any pope of Rome nor any person, high or low, however learned or renowned. This is a right that God reserves to Himself alone. Rome and Geneva both be warned!
Your interpretation of Luke 22:29-32 is a private interpretation of St. Luke’s prophecy, that is, his preaching or proclaiming, of Jesus’ words. So, I will choose to disregard the interpretation you have given, even if you received it from one of Peter’s supposed successors in Rome. It is far safer and more God-pleasing to abide by the warning and instruction of the original Peter, whose letters are a part of the unbreakable canon of the Holy Scriptures.
So, no, Jesus did not say “essentially the same thing.” No indeed, dear sir, He said nothing of the kind.
**practiced by Romanism **
What do you mean here? Please use the proper phrases — not the catch words that your propaganda puts forth — or is this the propaganda that you get at your Protestant Church?
Catholics, Protestants, and History (the faith of the early church)
How old is the Heavenly Father? And when exactly did he create our souls? And when and where is the first mention in the Book of Christ?
Glad you are pondering. LOL!
You referred your readers to the link entitled, “How old is your church?”
At the end of the article, if such it can be called, is the statement that Roman Catholics can comfort themselves with this that their church was founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D.
So, before that there was no church that believed in Christ, the Christ who was to come? Jesus’ references to Abraham knowing Him mean nothing? The fact that Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration (which Sunday of the church year it is tomorrow) conversed with the glorified Christ is no indication that they had known and believed in Him in their own lifetimes? The fact that David in Psalm 110 called the coming Christ His Lord, as Jesus expressly indicates in Matthew 22:41-45, does not mean anything?
No, Jesus did not found the Christian Church in 33 A.D. He is the Lord of the Church, that is, all the believers that have called on His name from Genesis to the present day, both those before His incarnation and those in the years that followed. Even His mother - yes, the Theotokos - believed in Him before He was conceived in her womb, as did her relative Elizabeth, and many others.
Not a good or convincing link. Sorry.
The Church Catholic (Universal) has existed from the time of our first parents, and needed then nor needs now any validation from those who would try to append “Roman” to Catholic and pretend that they are one and the same thing. The Church Catholic bows before the Christ alone. Always has, always will. Try being a bit more Catholic (Christian) and a little less Roman.
Question 1, absolutely not, one need only call on the Lord Jesus, repent, ask Him to be Lord of your Life, to be saved; 2. I certainly didn't infer that "many" had large written copies of the Tenach, only those in the priesthood might have had or shared one. By saying that "many had" I meant that these laws and such were memorized, hand written on their door posts, written words worn on their heads, etc.
Sorry that my words were misunderstood. The Jews at that time, even those that were not strongly religious, had been instructed in all of their religion and the feasts and their meanings, so they were not without any knowledge of God and the prophesied "coming Messiah," whom Christians believe to be Jesus Christ.
Good point.
So someone is on an island with no Bibles and no access to the any text from the Bible.
That person directly connects with Christ anyway and is saved by Christ.
Salvation by Christ.
Even with no Bible.
| Luke | ||
| English: Douay-Rheims | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | |
| Luke 22 |
||
| 29. | And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; | καγω διατιθεμαι υμιν καθως διεθετο μοι ο πατηρ μου βασιλειαν |
| 30. | That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. | ινα εσθιητε και πινητε επι της τραπεζης μου [εν τη βασιλεια μου] και καθισεσθε επι θρονων κρινοντες τας δωδεκα φυλας του ισραηλ |
| 31. | And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: | ειπεν δε ο κυριος σιμων σιμων ιδου ο σατανας εξητησατο υμας του σινιασαι ως τον σιτον |
| 32. | But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. | εγω δε εδεηθην περι σου ινα μη εκλιπη η πιστις σου και συ ποτε επιστρεψας στηριξον τους αδελφους σου |
If you don't like the context of the Kingdom, fine, -- this is why I read what is written and you being Protestant invent theologies. The point however remains:
ο σατανας εξητησατο υμας του σινιασαι -- "you", plural, all the Apostles.
εδεηθην περι σου ... πιστις σου ... συ ποτε επιστρεψας ... αδελφους σου -- all singular, thee, thy, thou, thy.
You asked, and I delivered, clear gospel. Don't like it, write your own.
Uh.
Last time I read the Gospel of Matthews it had a plural in there. "I will build my Church". Was that my eisegetical personal interpretation as well?
I do not wish to offend, but why do you nettle me with this trifle? I am not the one who inquired of that matter.
My position is that one does not need the Bible to be saved, but one does need the Bible if one wishes to be fully arm against false teachings that might lead one astray.
Fascinatingly enough, both sides of this debate are using Bible verses to buttress and promulgate their convictions.
If the Bible were truly not necessary, then those who don’t believe the Bible to be as such should simply refrain from using the Bible to defend their beliefs. Let us see how well they perform in this battle without having the written Word of God as a their sword... Or, are they just hypocrites?
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” - Hebrews 4:12
Cheers
For that matter the Bible doesn’t clearly define the doctrine of the Trinity, so that came from oral Tradition. There are clues and references to the persons of the Trinity in the Bible, but it wasn’t codified until after 2 ecumenical councils, I believe. The sacraments of baptism and communion, as well as proper liturgical worship were also not defined in the Bible, but were already in proper use by the time of the Council of Carthage in 397AD, when the Biblical canon was set. As someone already alluded to, the Didache defines much of this and was written in the 2nd century or earlier. Stylistically, the liturgy follows the old Jewish temple worship. As Christians we are the New Israel after all. What gets me is this implication that the Church that Christ promised to always protect and be with somehow “disappeared” for over 1400 years after the last Apostle John died until the Reformation. Is Jesus a lier? To me the key question is this: WHAT IS THE CHURCH? Luther understood that, but sort of wiggled around it by saying the Church is hidden, or that only God really knows.
The Bible is definitely useful for “to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”. It just does not happen to be the sole rule of faith as some heresies teach.
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.