Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
You wrote:
“Do you not understand the difference between “using human logic” and logically applying the written word of God?”
You’re using “human logic” in both cases. God made us reasonable creatures. We have the gift of reason. Using logic is using logic.
You wrote:
“Confiscate, to use as ones own regardless of true ownership. Nice try at deflection again though.”
No deflection. Your use of the wrong term is not a deflection on my part. If it is confiscated, it has to be physical. Someone must be able to ACTUALLY TAKE POSSESSION of it.
>>
“Christ founded a “universal” church as in all believers in Him are part of that “universal” church. Catholic - a person who belongs to the universal Christian church (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic)";
1) I asked for a verse that proved the following: “Okay, show me the verse that says, “Christ founded the catholic (small c) as in universal church of believers.””
Do you have it or not?
2) How many “universal Christian” churches are there?
3) How many “universal Christian” churches did Christ establish?
++++++++
?Some of us are so lazy and so spoiled. We do not feel the need to study God?s word or compare Scripture to Scripture. Just follow traditions, they must be correct.?
++++++++
I have met many who avoid study and in many denominations. My order is VERY Catholic and very given to study and prayerful reading of Scripture AND study of “tradition” as well. I am looking forward to re-reading “Splendor Veritatis” and “Fides et Ratio” as soon as I can string some hours together.
It is not so good to conclude that disagreement about The Scriptures or about how to, as some say in their traditional way, “rightly divide” it arises only from failure to study.
++++++++
God’s Word to mankind is finished with these words. ...
++++++++
It would be a traditional interpretation to understand “this book” to refer to anything more than the scroll of the Apocypse since it existed a good while as an independent book among many books.
We hold that binding revelation closed with the end of the Apostolic age and distinguish between fundamental revelation and its development.
...they became...Catholics...of course...they..did..NOT
One (1) and it consists of all those people who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior regardless of what organization they belong to or don’t belong to. Portions of that church are in different locations as we see for instance in Revelation 1.
Christ is the head of the whole church, not some fallible Pope, and He surely doesn’t need a stand in.
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
1 Cor. 12:8 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
Eph. 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
No more “church” hierchy to approach God for us or “representative” of Christ here on earth and Jesus is our only High Priest.
Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
1 Pet. 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
We have our own Shepard and “Bishop” in Christ.
1 Pet. 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
We no longer need the “rituals” of the Old Testament, or the hierarchy of the Priests and Bishops of the old Temple.
Gal. 4: 4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
That body is the body of believers Mad Dawg...not a building or group of selected men who officiate over it, though I understand that is otherwise your belief.
I will rest on the scriptures who tell me Christ is sufficient for all our needs and the church body of believers reflecting Him and bringing the Gospel message of salvation to an unsaved world. With Christ Jesus as the head and to whom all authority is given both in heaven and on earth.
As usual your “logic” focus's on the minor areas of differences......rather than the meat that is there for consumption.
Sometimes it seems you guys are intent on disproving the scriptures when in fact they are His written words to us just as He said.... Reminding me so much of how the Sadducee's and Pharisees fought Christ tooth and nail as well...
Why I have that every day Mad Dawg...that's why what we share with Him is a relationship.He's not off their in limbo somewhere where I have to request an encounter. He is by my side always and always avaiable to hear...a constant abiding presence. He it doesn't require a ritual of any sort for an "encounter" with Him...
Okay, show me the verse that says, “Christ founded the Catholic (capital c) as in The Roman Catholic church. I don't see it named anywhere in Scripture. I see no instructions on where it was to be headquartered, how the apostolic succession was to be handed down, or any of the other specifics that Catholics claim Jesus instituted but didn't give specific instructions for.
Matthew 23:1-10
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.
That verse has surely been ignored or explained away by Catholics. I find it amazing how they obliterate so much of the true meaning of scripture to control the masses.
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
So where is this in the Bible? What is Jesus referring to? Because Moses’ seat does not appear in the OT.
Wait, could this be Tradition? The oral Tradition of the Jews?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea1.asp
One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.
As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abote indicates, the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected.[ L. Sabourin, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1982), vol. 2, 793.]
Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.
Are you saying that I think the Church is a building or group of selected men who officiate over it? If so, you much mistake me.
I just recently riffed on I Cor 12, referring to the diversity of gifts and offices. But the whole argument, as I at least hinted, is that all are partakers of the one spirit, and that the “greatest of these”, charity, is available to all, as the last line of chapter 12 implies when it urges to Corinthians to seek after the higher gifts.
Again and again on these threads I have referred to “Dominus Iesus” and pointed out that the phrase “separated brethren”, which so many of you find offensive, is an assertion that “brethren”, members of the body, are found among “ecclesial assemblies” not in communion with the Holy See.
If we did not think that at least some “non-Catholics” are really members of the Catholic Church in a certain way we would insist on baptizing all who sought to come into full communion.
So, once again it seems, someone is so sure of what we believe that there is no room to find out what the teaching of the Church actually is.
By the way, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote or presided over the production of “Dominus Iesus” before he was elected Pope. It is, you can conclude, representative of what we teach.
Is it resting on Scripture that leads to this misrepresentation of what we teach? I cannot think so.
I’m sorry if I sound tart or offended. I ask you to consider how frustrating it is to be told repeatedly that you believe something stupid which you do not in fact believe.
Did I deny in any way his gracious accessibility?
Look, I've had it. When you're ready to stop telling me what I believe get back to me. If you have questions, that's one thing. But fatuous posts based on an idea of my being thoughtlessly superstitious ARE offensive.
Some opponents don't need us. In fact we're an inconvenience because we interrupt their preposterous and shallow accounts of our supposed beliefs with what we do in fact believe. They prefer shadow-boxing with its empty victories and specious condescension.
Also, I note that when I answer your preposterous and thoughtless charge that we think the priest somehow causes the Eucharist to take place, instead of acknowledging the answer and accepting or objecting to it you changed the subject.
Is it resting in God’s word to bob and weave, to dodge profitable exchanges in favor of cheap shots? Let me know now so that I can reserve my time and efforts for someone serious. I am getting old and I don’t want to waste my time in vapid verbal sparring.
The actual teaching is that Baptism with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is “ordinarily” (but not in every case) necessary to Salvation. I have never heard that the Eucharist was necessary. If we thought it was we would try to communicate dying infants.
And we do not hold either Baptism or the Eucharist to be merely physical.
I agree and what I have found, too, is when we determine to memorize Scriptures, the Holy Spirit "brings back to our remembrance" truths that we have learned from Scripture. When I was in Bible College nearly 40 years ago, we usually had memory verses for part of the assignments for classes - a few had entire chapters. We had tests where the selected verses had to be written verbatim, and grades were determined by how well we did in remembering them. I can't tell you how many times those Scriptures came in handy for witnessing and even in talking to other Christians for encouragement. Most of them, I can STILL quote verbatim and with others I know the Bible addressed a subject that comes up and, even though I might not remember the actual chapter and verse, I know it is in there and use search engines in the online Bibles to find it.
Also, the Holy Spirit sometimes brings verses to my mind when I have my personal devotions or when I have something negative happen to me, it is a HUGE comfort. Study is very important, too, but added to that, memorization makes it even better. "Thy word have I hidden in my heart", the Psalm says.
Has “lectio divina” reached your world? Do you know the term?
Although I understand what you are saying and I admire your "deep" thinking - a man after Aquinas' own heart - I sometimes think people "take" some things to extreme. Now, I'm not claiming I don't do it sometimes, nor do I think it is misguided in all cases, but it seems to be more evident in some customs and, yes, even some faiths than others - for good or not. When you say, "The very water which streamed over our Lord’s body at the hands of John is made as holy by that contact as the tassels of his clothing were.", I "get" the point, but I can't really say this doesn't go a bit too far.
When you speak of the things that touched Jesus - water, clothing, his Mother's body - as being "holy" because of their contact personally with the Son of God, then it would stand to reason that if God expected this type of reverence towards Jesus, then why didn't he say it? I'm not being crude here, but were his doodie-filled diapers saved as "relics"? Was the water by which he bathed kept for consecrating? How about the "swaddling clothes" that wrapped his infant body? His worn-out clothing and sandals? Do you see where I'm coming from? Rather than place the reverence for those things or people who had "intimate" contact with Jesus, why not place this same deep consideration upon what he did and what he taught, who HE was? THOSE were the things that mattered, that DO matter, to all believers through the ages, NOT the relics of him and those who shared in his mission. He was born as we all are and he took on human flesh and even though he was God incarnate he functioned and grew as we do physically. He was tempted at all point even as we are, yet he never sinned. Granted, his shadow fell on a woman and she was healed, but it was not the shadow that healed her.
As for the debates, I agree that nothing "seems" to be accomplished by arguments, I can't help but think that God has a purpose for them, though. I don't condone meanness nor viciousness - and no "side" is immune - but only by exercising beliefs and challenging others as well as our own being challenged can we truly know what as well as why we do hold those beliefs. I think it would do us all well to put ourselves in the others place and filter our responses by whether or not they glorify God in the long run. Thank you, as always, for your well-expressed thoughts.
LOL, I have one of those pictures too!
I agree that our bodies will be perfected just as our souls will be perfected.
It will be for us as God wanted it to be before the fall.
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.