Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
INDEED.
Though a lot of RC’s hereon seem to think I consider that my main occupation as well as my main hobby.
Sigh.
Are RC's our brethren?
Regrettably, they preach a different Gospel then I see in Scripture.
How about we start with your choice of the term "Romanist" (Offensive - One who professes Roman Catholicism) as an example. Many anti-Catholics use the language as a means to intentionally game the RM and antagonize Catholics. Repeatedly associating a term from Catholic dogma with a false and/or demeaning definition in spite of repeated corrections occurs frequently. Throw in the making of completely ignorant statements of Catholic dogma and pejorative associations and you have begged for a Catholic rebuttal which you appear to perceive as an attempt to control.
The verse that says face to face is modified several verses along, which I posted to you. You were intimating that God and Moses had a face to face buddy conversation; I posted the explanation that God forbade Moses or any man to ever see His face and the whole Scripture of Moses not looking anywhere except at God's back as He passed. Hardly a face to face buddy conversation.
The bible clearly states that BOTH men saw and heard face to face and mouth to mouth. The scriptures I gave you give you the opportunity to see and learn, or deny and go on your way. You want it to say what you want it to say, and it simply DOES NOT.
I went through the verses that you listed and exactly none of them showed that Paul had a face to face buddy conversation with Jesus. His meeting on the road showed him a bright light and his companions either heard a voice(Acts 9) or they didn't (Acts 26). The only thing that you listed in terms of Paul quoting what Jesus said to him was the instruction to get out of town quickly.
You would go a long way to gaining some real respect if you stopped fighting what the bible clearly says.
You made a bunch of claims which none of your posted verses supported. Do you have any others?
No, there is no video or audio of Moses or Paul receiving their instructions.
Moses wrote down what his revelation was - it is the Torah. John wrote down what his revelation was - it is the last book in the Bible. Where did Paul relate in chronological order, as Moses and John did, what Paul's revelation was? And even the revelation to John was not as it was to Moses. God told Moses. God instructed John to write down what he saw. There is interpretation right there.
You want it to say what you want it to say, and it simply DOES NOT. And I think you know it. You’re like a little kid, stomping your foot in rebellion. It’s not pretty.
The Bible says what the Bible says. And your posts show that you and Scripture deviate. It simply does not say many of the things that you say it does - and I provided examples of why I say that.
And that does not appear to be enough for you. All I can do is shake my head. I’m not looking for any more proof for you.
Well, don't. Just do not expect to get a pass on your claims. If you claim something, you must support it. And your claims have woefully inadequate support from Scripture.
It will NEVER be enough. You don’t want it to be.
Perhaps one difference between us is that I want to understand God and Scripture. As they are. Not as I want them to be. I am an engineer. I look at things both individually and systematically. If I bring prejudices into my projects, my projects will inevitably achieve less than if I leave those prejudices and focus on what is.
Just a cursory quickie study I found:
I should have been clearer. List all the quotes that Paul says that Jesus gave him in his revelation, is what I should have said.
Where is Paul's revelation listed out, as Moses did and John did?
Funny...I would think that if God went to all the trouble of "breathing" the very words he wanted written for all eternity, he would not have allowed the man to "interpret" it his own way.
We must turn to Scripture for enlightenment.
Luke 1: 1 1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, 3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
There is no dictation here, just interviews of eyewitnesses and amassing of all the information that Luke could get.
Revelation 1: 10 I was caught up in spirit on the Lord's day 9 and heard behind me a voice as loud as a trumpet, 11 which said, "Write on a scroll 10 what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."
John was instructed to write down what he saw. Not dictated to. By definition, John interpreted his vision in order to go from the scene unfolding in front of him to the written word.
And, just to be clear, I have never seen a post yet that uses other scripture to debate, disparage or "trump" the words of our Savior.
Try using Matthew, especially the Sermon on the Mount and the parables in chapter 25 and see how quickly Pauline verses are found to counter your Scripture. The Sermon on the Plain and much of Luke is also treated in the same fashion.
It is not possible for one verse to contradict another regardless of who is speaking.
It certainly is. The dietary laws, for example. The OT instructions of Sabbath versus the development of Jesus and the Apostles. Even the Beatitudes versus certain Pauline snippets appear to contradict. That is why in contentious Scriptural debate, I like to use paragraphs or the whole chapter in order to put things into perspective and the proper context.
Yeah...disbelieving, dishonest or ignorant people do it quite often but it doesn't mean God's word is at fault.
God's word is never at fault. However, men's is often at fault. Translations are faulty. The harmonizing of the Bible has changed things. Remember that there are about 60 different Gospels that we have portions of, and another 20 that we have references to. And each one of these has had many many different copies which vary from each other. No, God is not at fault. But men often are...
Many thanks. I’m reading through the wide eyed declaration of Christian unity of doctrines amongst the various folks here and realizing that the only thing uniting them is antiCatholicism.
Just look at this...How in the world do you 'participate' in the blood of Jesus Christ??? Participate means to 'take part in' something...How do you take part in the blood of Jesus??? That's crazy...
What the verse 'really' says is,
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
The emphasis is not on the bread; the emphasis is on the communion...And the communion is MUTUAL PARTICIPATION...That means, everybody does it...Communion...Commune...Everybody...
Your religion has changed the Communion, the action of a group to Participate, into the action of a single person and claim you participate in the blood and flesh which makes no sense at all...
The concept is that we participate in the celebration together...NOT that the wine and bread turns into meat and blood and that we eat and drink it...
1Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
An outrageous twisting of God's words into a senseless statement that's is apparently supposed to convince you guys that participating in flesh and blood somehow means you eat the Flesh and blood of Jesus...
I cannot see what is in a person's heart. Only God sees that and he knows those that are his. My point of speaking of the sin of sowing discord is the attempt, not of speaking the truth in love - as we are commanded to do - but rather nit-picking various minor doctrines and trying to drive a wedge between genuine Christians based on minor theological points. There are many major doctrines within the Catholic Church, and other "Christian" faiths, that I do not agree with, that I believe are unbiblical and, actually, destroy the truth of the Gospel. Regardless, we are told to be gentle, respectful and loving towards others.
My question had to do with a person who tries to cause discord where none should exist. Where there is discord, whatever is discussed is usually lost because offended people rarely hear anything past the offending statements.
Nope, I came by myself...But perhaps as a Catholic, you mean that when you guys sit thru a year of teaching about your church fathers, you all come as a group on Easter to officially join your religion...
Sola scriptura reeks of egotism, it's all me, me, me -- MY interpretation etc.
Again, you are mistaken...It's all God, God, God, and His interpretation...
We in the Apostolic Church, learn as a community, we interpret as a community stretching back 2000 years.
Your popes may tell you that...But you guys are just a bunch of puppets...You guys don't have to understand anything...You don't have to know anything, except, how to cut and paste...
God deals and communicates with people One on one...WE have a relationship, not a religion...One day, you may find that out...
Where did that phrase come from??? From what I see in the scriptures, God wants His mysteries revealed...He wants to turn everyone to Him, even His enemies...Not to hide His mysteries from them...
It’s from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrystostom, which was over one thousand years old when Protestantism began.
Tell that to the children of Israel, wandering out there for 40 years.
On the chance you are at all interested, The Orthodox call the Sacraments, the Mysteries.
I'm convinced after so many years hereon
that if a Proddy said
"Tomorrow, the sun will come up on the Vatican."
that some Papist bigot would take offense somehow.
So the wailing and whining just doesn't move me much any more . . . except to derision at the infantile emoting.
Good points.
Did you really believe that by quoting but not pinging me you could directly call me a bigot and not make it personal?
Have you been so long hereon that you are
REALLLLLLLLLLLLLY
that unaware of the rules?
Thankfully, FR is not willing to comply with
your construction on reality
!!!!DEMANDING!!!! that FR become a directly controlled sub-office of the Vatican 100% compliant with your sensibilities.
I gather you’re still rather confused about open threads not at all being a recommended venue for the thin-skinned.
I am a little curious about what the rabid cliques folks do with all the tears they wring out of all their soaked white hankies. I’d think that would be way too much water for their tiny sprinkling “baptismal” fonts.
Is there any term that you wouldn’t find offensive?
Or is it only Natural Law approved terms that everyone else is allowed to use?
If Catholics can call Protestants “heretics”, then why whine about “Romanists” or “RC’s”?
Point well taken.
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.