Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
Irony, thy name is metmom.
Show me where I've ever used that tactic.
Yes, and the reason I presented Satan on Scriptures vs. Jesus Christ on Scriptures.
I wish I'd been keeping up with how many times catholics use this poorly constructed argument....not all truth is in the Bible. Good grief. I almost quit reading right there.
The Bible makes no claims on those topics. However, where the Bible does deal with science or history, it is correct. It's not a math book or science book. It is God's revelation to us.
Ah, but that would be a violation of "sola Scriptura!" If your opinion isn't in Scripture, then your own standards insist that I not believe you... right? There DOES need to be a clear passage of Scripture which teaches your opinion, or else (thanks to your adherence to sola Scriptura) you have no basis for saying that it's true. You can talk about "context" until you're blue in the face... but unless the context teaches exactly what you claim it teaches, you're done. Otherwise, the rallying cry of "context, context" can be nothing more than a sort of "magical incantation" by which someone dismisses anything he doesn't like, or anything with which he doesn't agree.
Were you aware Psalms says "there is no God?"
Now, if you heard someone stand up and say that you might think....wow. I've never heard that in the Bible before.
But if you read the context of this in Psalms 14:1 you get the following:
For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
That extra bit of context makes a difference does it not?
No, we're not free to conjure up just ANYTHING; it can't CONTRADICT the Scriptures, for one thing, and it should have reasonable EXTERNAL evidence, in order to entertain the idea in the first place.
I agree...we can't just make stuff up.
But, if you're not relying upon the written word for God's truth, then what are you relying on?
A questionable appearance at Fatima? Or any other of the "Mary" appirations?
What is your standard by which to measure truth? Maybe the Koran? the Book of Mormon? maybe the Beatles?
However, that is exactly what the rcc has done with mary and the immaculate conception.
By not relying on any scriptural support for this, and not understanding that all have sinned, and a very poor interpretation of Luke 1:28, this "dogma" has been declared.
There is ample evidence in the Word where Mary's own words and actions declare she is a sinner. Yet the rcc completely ignores these and issues the dogmatic statement on her being sinless.
You are aware that the ECFs were not in 100% agreement on this issue...or many other the rcc claims are supported by the ECFs. Peter being the first pope is one of these.
I suggest you check those. Very eye opening.
And in ignoring context again, the rcc declares mary to be ever-virgin....without reading the texts that shows Jesus had brothers and sisters. And please, don't try to use the "cousin" or "children from another marriage" argument. Those have been so debunked it would be embarrassing to engage those.
So again, context is everything.
I've never heard John 21:25 cited as evidence for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (and it'd be a bit silly, since Jesus wasn't on Earth when the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven;
Stay on this board long enough and you will!
St. John was almost certainly alive when it happened, but it seems likely that he was referencing Jesus' earthly ministry in John 21:25...
Now is that your own personal interpretation of Scripture? Is there "official teaching from Rome" on this? But I commend you on this as you observed from context what John was referring to. I agree he was referencing Jesus. Why? Because that's what the context of his gospel was about.
If John were "almost certainly" alive don't you think he'd included that in his Gospel. That would be a pretty big deal I would think. That he didn't include it is telling.
not events which were decades in the future). I *have* heard John 21:25 used (and rightly so) to rebuke the silly idea that "if it isn't in the Bible, no believer is bound to believe it"! The Bible never pretends to be all-inclusive of revealed truth... and the idea of "Bible alone" literally came out of *nowhere*, for no logical reason (and probably for the illogical reason of saying "anything but the Catholic Church!").
The Bible is clear it is not all inclusive. I don't think you'll ever hear a Christian say that.
The very reason we have the NT is because the early church was experiencing people who were doing just what the rcc is doing today....continuing ongoing revelation of "truth". The church wanted a written record of books that could be read in the church. One of the main requriements was that the book had to have been written by an apostle or one associated with an aposted like Luke. By the end of the 2nd century we had the four Gospels, Acts and Paul's letters as being used by the early church. What the Bible does tell though is all we need on how to be saved.
If you take all of the context,(there's that word again) of the NT, you will see it comes down to faith in Christ. Only believe in His Name. He's fairly clear on this. Does this mean we follow Him and do those things He asks us to? You betcha it does. But do we have to do those things to keep salvation? No, sir. For if we did then we'd have something to brag about....look how many or how much of X I've done.
No, Jesus died on the cross for our sins where those sins remain. They are covered by His blood....100%. Big ones and small ones.
A believer can't be good enough to get into Heaven and bad enough to stay out because of His shed blood.
That is what separates Christianity from all other beliefs.
You couldn't be more wrong...That's not the way God wrote the bible...Just like in the parables, God wrote the scriptures in a way that would weed out the non believers...That's why you can't find 'sola scripture' (or anything else) in the bible while we can see it everywhere we look...
To the end of what??? I'll bet you don't even know...
Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Even those who die in fires are relieved of the pain when they die. Not so in Gehanna. Eternally burning with no relief from death.
So HELL is not just a metaphore to you?.. albeit a damned good one..
IF.... lack of forgiveness is not HELL.. I cannot imagine what is..
sorry... personal experience.. I’ve been there..
Of course Catholics don't like context.
When they have to use it, they cannot cherry pick verses and parts of verses to make Catholic doctrine up with.
Don't need it...God said he would preserve his words forever...
When you find a bible that has the same books that Israel of the Old Testament used you can know that you have the preserved list of inspired scripture...And when you find the New Testament that is coupled with those preserved texts, you know you have the complete bible...Unchanged for thousands of years...Only God could do that...
IF.... lack of forgiveness is not HELL.. I cannot imagine what is.. sorry... personal experience.. I’ve been there..
I'm sure that is part of what hell is but according to Jesus' description of it in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, there is the physical torment aspect of it as well.
The very premise of your question is fallacious. Y
This has already basically been addressed , and the answer is the same way OT writings had become established as being of God, which were invoked as substantiating Truth claims by which the NT church was established.
If a canon of any length had been established as being authoritative - and it is clear that one did by the time of Christ, as seen by the abundant clear references to OT writings in the New - and which, as with men of God, was essentially due to their distinctive enduring Divine qualities and attestation, then a future settled canon can be realized the same way.
"And on what authority" is a loaded question, as it presupposes a basis for any authority to settle the canon, and then the issue become whether such an authority must be one which cannot err in major universal faith and morality decisions.
To be sure, the OT magisterium was given binding and loosing power to settle disputes, dissent from which was a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) And which corresponds to Mt. 18:15-20, though that also extends into the spiritual realm and therein to believers in general. And Westminster affirms the office of the magisterium.
And certainly it can be assumed that those who sat in the seat of Moses had an important role in establishing OT books, yet what is incontrovertible is that the "laity" discerned both men and writings as being of God without a perpetual infallible magisterium, and which is how he church began.
But which is contrary to what RCs teach, which is that an infallible magisterium is essential to correctly know what Scripture is and means.
Which is the alternative to SS (not only the typical RC strawman of it), and which is what should be the issue.
Recognition of these books as being Divine came from the same source that recognition of OT men and writings being of God came from. That being their unique Heavenly qualities and attestation. And as these writings testify to writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus in principal these writings provided for a canon of Scripture.
Now as concerns your alternative, Where was an infallible magisterium ever essential for men to correctly discern writings of God as being so, as RCs argue, and their meanings?
Well, it seems after refuting many of the usual crowd then some new ones get recruited to parrot the same.Then RCs complain about anti-Catholics.
.
Do you ever do anything but debate your own strawmen?
.
NO, gehanna is NOT a metaphor.
>>IF.... lack of forgiveness is not HELL.. I cannot imagine what is.. sorry... personal experience.. I’ve been there..<<
You ain't seen nothing yet if you don't accept Jesus as your savior.
Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.
Still waiting on the post police to define “way so.”
Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
catholics never cease to amaze me with the ignorance of what their own catechism says.
Next question, please.
Perhaps then, some Catholic could explain why, for the last 2,000 years, the RCC has abdicated its responsibility for providing its constituents an *authentic* (probably meaning official) interpretation of the Bible.
It's not like they haven't had plenty of time in which to do it.
**John 1:18 ...the only begotten God (Theos)..**
Does your source say “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten God..”? (Jn 3:16)
Think about it.....’begotten God’.......
There is a reason that Jesus Christ and his apostles only used the phrase ‘the Son of God’.
Apparently the staff (most likely trinitarians) that put together the KJV, worded it as closely to the Greek as they could. It was a seven year project, I’m told, so they probably used every source they could find.
They saw fit to use the phrase ‘Son of God’ over 40 times, and not use the phrase ‘God the Son’ even once.
Proves to me that God preserves his word, whether it’s ravens, widows, RC ‘church fathers’, a King James committee, etc.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
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.