| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/18/2017 12:24:33 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish personal comments |
Posted on 03/13/2017 8:58:52 AM PDT by ebb tide
“If you want to ramble on about what is, or isn’t scripture, before,...or after,.. answering yes or no, that’s fine.”
Could you answer my questions? I would have no problem with yours - but they are all predicated on a false premise of sola scriptura. With that in mind I asked you questions about sola scriptura - questions you would struggle to answer using sola scriptura.
We could play this game all day where you ask questions based on sola scriptura which I have no difficulty answering and I ask you questions you cannot answer using sola scriptura. The issue seems then to boil down to sola scriptura. And sola scriptura is a false doctrine. Hence, you use it and I reject it. I’m orthodox. You’re not.
“By normal debate rules, you should have answered mine first, so I will give you more time.”
I don’t need it. I see no reason to debate you according to your heretical view. Sola scriptura is a heresy. It appears no where in the Bible even.
“Meanwhile, I will penalize your evasiveness by giving you two more very specific questions:”
Then I will answer the questions essentially as I answered the ones before - but with one difference: I will answer your questions WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS YOUR ARE INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING MINE.
“If Acts 2:38 is in your bible, just as it is in my bible, it shows baptism is done for remission of sins. Does the remission of sins wear off? (I mean, hey, according to you, your predecessors decided that Acts 2:38 was inspired)”
No.
“If Hebrew 9:22 (without the shedding of blood is no remission) is in your bible, just as it is in mine, then blood must be miraculously applied to the soul being baptized, as per Acts 2:38. Yes of no?”
Yes.
“(Don’t forget to send flowers to be placed on Saul Alinsky’s grave)”
Remember, I can answer your questions and you’re incapable of answering mine - as you have already proved now.
Here they are again just in case you maintain your manifest failure:
You undoubtedly believe Matthew’s gospel is inspired. No where in scripture does it ever say Matthew wrote an inspired gospel. Isn’t that true?
You undoubtedly believe the book of Esther is inspired. Where in the Bible does it actually say Esther’s author was inspired but Judith’s was not?
No where in the scriptures is there an inspired table of contents of the Bible. Isn’t that true?
Jesus, in every gospel, says that he is/or will give His flesh/body for people to eat. Isn’t that true?
Jesus, in every gospel, says that he is/or will give His blood for people to drink. Isn’t that true?
In Matthew 16, according to Orthodox, Catholic and many Protestant scholars, Jesus declares Peter the Rock. Here are examples of Protestant scholars admitting it: http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/protestant-scholars-on-mt-1616-19.html Since that is true, then isn’t any attempt by an attacker against the Catholic Church to create an impression that if 1 Peter 2:5-8 says Jesus is the cornerstone just a duplicitous way of trying to undermining the standard and ancient orthodox understanding of Peter as the Rock of Matthew 16?
Now, I want to post a couple more comments:
1) I actually answered a question or two of yours - AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT FACT. Below are the questions you asked and I answered. Thus, when you say, “I gave very specific questions. You, in turn, gave me very specific questions. By normal debate rules, you should have answered mine first, so I will give you more time. Meanwhile, I will penalize your evasiveness by giving you two more very specific questions” you’re not exactly being truthful now are you since I did in fact answer four questions of yours - which means I answered four more questions of yours than you answered of mine. It should be I who penalize you. It is no surprise to me that you would be so mistaken about reality. Someone who attacks Christ’s Church as you do cannot be in a firm grasp of reality to begin with. Here then is what you have completely ignored - perhaps because it doesn’t serve your purposes or perhaps because you are incapable of dealing with it.
“Lastly, If the mass is consumed for eternal life, is once enough?”
It can be - for those who only need it once. God, in His wisdom, however, foresaw that people would sin so He gave us the sacraments to aid us. The sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist can be received more than once and should be.
“If so, then why continue to consume it repeatedly?”
Why read the Bible more than once? Why pray more than once? Why tell your wife you love her more than once? Jesus said to do this (meaning the Eucharist) in remembrance of Him. He never said, “Do it only once.”
“If once is not enough, then why is that?”
Again, for some, once may be enough, for most it is not because of our own sinful choices. Again, is reading the Bible ONCE enough for YOU? Is praying ONCE enough for YOU?
“Does it not have eternal power?”
Yes, it does. But we don’t. God gave us free will. We choose to sin. God’s Word has eternal power - but I bet you read the Bible more than once, right?
Since you “penalized” me when I actually answered several of your questions and then completely ignored all of my answers (which seems completely intellectually dishonest to me for a person to do) I will now penalize you this way: You must answer all of my questions, and respond to all of my answers or you will forfeit this debate and sola scriptura will be acknowledged as a heretical fraud. That seems fair in light of your obvious wrong doing in claiming I did not answer questions when I did answer some and you simply ignored the answers. And after all, your questions were predicated on a false point - sola scriptura - which was not agreed to by me as a basis for debate. To start a debate without agreed to rules is one of the worst offenses to be committed in a debate so this will be the one and only chance you get to make up for your violation of basic debate rules (since you insist). I’m sure you’ll fail in any case.
Whatever She is now, a large percentage of Christianity accepts both Her divinity and Her mission, along with the supernatural ways through which we’ve come to know Her.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/virgin-mary-text
“That’s Romish fantasy. The Lord did not “found” the rotten parts of Roman Catholic theology.”
Awww, look. BlueDragon is apparently so desperate for attention that he is responding to posts to other people and making sweeping statements that smack of sheer bigotry with no basis in reality. Awww. Poor baby blue dragon.
Why do you hate the teachings of the Early Church Fathers??
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
This is new to me.
Care to share it?
Don't do those; either.
This is NOT rocket surgery...
Sigh...
So is a Brown Scapular.
Got one of those?
Anything you 'need' can be found in Christ.
Even the first 'pope' agrees!
2 Peter 1:3
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
Sorry; but your explanation is WRONG.
Corinthians 11:23-26 (NIV)
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. THIS is a PASSOVER meal. Matthew 26:17-30 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal. 20 When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve;[a] 21 and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” 25 Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.”The Passover with the Disciples
We got folks in this thread that claim the teaching of the CATHOLIC Early Church Fathers are NOT sound 'cause they wuzn't a pope!!
Go figger!
Oooops
Thanks a LOT!
Reminds me of the old joke...
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Are you sure you can skin grizz?
Jeremiah Johnson: Just as fast as you can catch' em.
[Bear Claw runs into and through the cabin with a huge grizzly bear close behind and jumps out the back window]
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: [as the fight rages inside the cabin] Skin that one, pilgrim, and I'll get you another!
How do you like your albatross cooked?
Thanks for sharing Christ in your life! Post 187 gives a good explanation of Luther's use of the word "alone" in Romans 3:28.
Get over yourself. You're the last one on these threads to play by any set of normal or fair debate rules.
My new activity template.
Great idea, thanks and keep the sharpening stones handy, Pilgrim...
And the raging bears were suddenly lulled into state of sleepiness? Wouldn't that be nice..
You are right. It's not rocket surgery.
It's bear skinnin'.
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.