No doubt.
Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
I believe I’ve told you this twice already so what you just said is an untruth already but here goes again.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
Do I also have to re-post all the verses from both the Old and the New Testament on who the Rock really is?
If someone else is too lazy to be bothered looking up something they claim I said, why should I waste my time?
If someone accuses me of something and proof is not forthcoming, I consider the accusation an example of bearing false witness and the the debate ceded.
It’s not a tacit admission of anything.
I believe at this point the best and only response is to leave it as *Put up or shut up.* cause I ain’t going there any more.
End of story.
Nonsense. My grandfather and father both used a two legged stool to milk cows. Some even used a one legged stool. Even that Catholics can’t get right or even figure out evidently.
You don’t believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of scripture?
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If they didn’t have them how could they “search the scriptures daily”? Seems they not only were expected to have them but to also search them daily.
Your comments would be appropriate to be aimed at catholics, but not at Christians.
Buy a Bible soon.
Expected from antiCatholics, in spite of everything that I and other Catholics have posted. I have repeatedly posted that I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote Scripture. Why would you insinuate otherwise?
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If they didn’t have them how could they “search the scriptures daily”? Seems they not only were expected to have them but to also search them daily.
Why were they noble? Because they received the word of God? Or because they searched the Old Testament daily? The Pharisees and Sadducees searched the Old Testament daily. Jesus did not refer to them as noble.
No, I will stand by my quotes from Jesus - and in context. We are instructed to love God with all our heart and soul and strength, and our neighbour as ourself. We are instructed to believe in Jesus. Directly. All men. These are steps 1 and 2. How many believers over the centuries could not read? More than could, if you do the numbers.
But, like Islam, the Reformation teaches the religion of the book, and not the belief in God. Both you and e-s have just posted to that effect. It is not belief that matters, it is not faith in God, but in your own personal concoction of words, phrases and unrelated snippets of Scripture which amounts to your own theology.
Christianity is not as much about the book as it is about faith in Christ. St. Luke painted (wrote) the first icon - of Mary. Did he write it before his Gospel?
Or will we Catholics be instructed yet again that the gospel is not the Gospels?
No doubt.
Doesn't apply to those who declare their own salvation.
Since I post far more Scripture in defense of my positions, that is rather odd statement to make.
However, you further the argument that the Reformation was about the religion of the book and not belief in God.
So you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspired those writers to write the books of the New Testament? If they hadn’t recorded the words of Jesus and the things they were taught under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we wouldn’t have known. Disregard the written word all you want but it’s the word of God preserved for us by the Holy Spirit.
Your vile accusations against Luke are without merit.
Luke never painted any idols.
.
>> “How many believers over the centuries could not read? More than could, if you do the numbers” <<
.
Since you have no knowledge of who was a believer, I’ll disregard that absurd comment. Catholics largely are illiterate, and they are discouraged from reading the word of God anyway, so its unlikely that many of them have been believers. Christians, on the other hand tend to be literate and read and memorize the word.
Exhibit your ignorance all you want. The one leg of the stool with the two legs of the man made a three legged stool. You see, if man has within himself the promise of God he doesn’t need the other two legs of the Catholic Church to hold him up. He needs just one strong support of God.
So you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspired those writers to write the books of the New Testament?
I and every other Catholic believe that He did. Shall we dispense with these stupid accusations now? They don't add to your argument.
If they hadn’t recorded the words of Jesus and the things they were taught under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we wouldn’t have known.
Who recorded the words of Jesus? Names and dates, please.
Disregard the written word all you want but it’s the word of God preserved for us by the Holy Spirit.
I take Scripture very seriously. It is the children of the Reformation that I take lightly. You guys disregard the direct instructions of Jesus and prefer your own imaginings. The pinnacle of God's revelation to man is the Incarnation of His Son. Not whatever you scrape from under your toenails after a shower each day.
I parade it daily for the amusement of the unlettered and the arrogant.
The one leg of the stool with the two legs of the man made a three legged stool.
I will resist the temptation to make anatomical jokes at your expense. The mods might take umbrage.
You see, if man has within himself the promise of God he doesn’t need the other two legs of the Catholic Church to hold him up. He needs just one strong support of God.
You guys keep showing us that you don't need God. You are the masters of God, creating Him in your own image and declaring your own salvation.
NO because your contention that it’s “just a book” would surely indicate that you don’t give the Holy Spirit credit.
Interesting reading skills. I never said Luke painted idols. I said that he wrote the first icon - of Mary. Kinda gets you right there, doesn't it?
>> “How many believers over the centuries could not read? More than could, if you do the numbers” <<
. Since you have no knowledge of who was a believer, I’ll disregard that absurd comment. Catholics largely are illiterate, and they are discouraged from reading the word of God anyway, so its unlikely that many of them have been believers. Christians, on the other hand tend to be literate and read and memorize the word.
Sheer ignorance of the history of the world. Until the sixteenth century, with the invention of the printing press, less than 5 percent of any culture could read. And even now, how many people in this world are literate?
Or are you now arguing that only literates who read the Bible are believers? Where in the Bible does it say that you must read Scripture? Don't both with the Berean quote - you guys always get that out of context. Do you have any other?
NO because your contention that it’s “just a book” would surely indicate that you don’t give the Holy Spirit credit.
I never said that it's just a book. Why are you misquoting me yet again? Shall I assume that since you are losing the debate, you have to resort to misquoting me and replying to the misquotes, rather than quoting me accurately and having to defend your rather tenuous position?
Were you not so ignorant of the word of God, you would know that all the early Christians read Paul’s letters, and the OT scriptures.
Illiteracy came largely when the pagan Romans subsumed Christianity, and created the “catholic” church in the 4th century.
You are boneachingly wrong once again. Your American public school education is showing through yet again.
https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4172 says that:
With the assumption that the rural population was around 70% (with 0% literacy), 20% of urban population (with 1-5% literacy), and 10% of highly urban population (with 2-15% literacy), the total population literacy is still very low. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel at that time (of Jews only, of course), was probably less than 3%.
And the Jewish culture had the highest rate of literacy of any surrounding culture. Ot are you still claiming that one must read the Bible to be saved? Where does it say that in the Bible. Where does it say that all the early Christians read Paul's letter and the OT scripture? Why do you exclude the Gospels and the rest of the NT?
Wouldn't have anything to do with the novelties of your religion, would it?
Really, so now you are saying that Jesus didn’t give the name Rock to Peter?
Or are you saying that Jesus gave that name to all the Apostles?
NO? When He said to Peter, YOU ARE ROCK, He was really speaking to Peter’s revelation and not to Peter.
As I said, no way to rationally explain it away.
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.