Posted on 08/02/2017 2:07:44 PM PDT by detective
The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference (CEV) has publicly invoked the intercession of the Virgin Mary to free the nation “from the claws of communism,” in a clear reference to the regime of President Nicolás Maduro.
“Blessed Virgin, Mother of Coromoto, heavenly Patron of Venezuela, free our country from the claws of communism and socialism,” the CEV posted on Twitter this Sunday, complete with an image of Santa Maria and a Venezuelan flag.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’s a pleasant fantasy to dream that RCC members would actually consider the points raised in your post number one thousand two hundred and fifty-nine, for their sake and the sake of this forum’s possible viability in the future.
It may take quite a long while to collate their sect’s official refutations of the questions posed. Regardless, I expect, the RCC responses will be excepted by most RCs who populate this forum.
Thank you for that post. You’re right about the time frame. Change occasionally comes quickly, but more often it takes a while. I reminisce about my years as a liberal. I certainly didn’t become a conservative over night. It took quite a while.
Something occurred to me in the course of this thread. I think the rubric would be, ‘Attitude toward Scripture.’
Resettozero, I don’t have to ask what is your attitude toward Scripture. I know what it is. You seek first to understand the text, and then to apply it. Since you believe in inspiration, you don’t see your role as one of challenging and second guessing God’s revealed word. You see Jesus as Lord and yourself as His servant. The servant doesn’t challenge the word of the master.
Then we have the other side of this debate. I can only give my perceptions, so for what they’re worth.
What I have seen is an attitude toward Scripture that casts it as an obstacle to be gotten around. For example, if the Scripture plainly says Jesus had brothers, then the reaction is, ‘How can this passage be neutralized/explained away/made to say something different?
Second example. The Lord’s own words say that the foundation on which He has built His church is feminine—petra. That being a fact, in a servant/master relationship, the question would be, ‘How can I align my doctrine and traditions with the inerrant word of God?’.
But what we actually see is a quest to get around a perceived obstacle. I.e.: the word as revealed contradicts denominational tradition. Therefore the need is to set aside the Scripture so that man-made tradition may continue unperturbed.
How scary is this?? We are called to be hearers and doers of the word, not judges/arbiters of it. How will the servant answer the Master, when He asks why His word was challenged?
It’s terrifying.
Hopefully changes will come. It may take time, but hopefully eventually it happens.
I had a suspicion this would be the case. RC teaching leaves the door open to the possibility that Paul wasn’t all, or even mostly, right when he challenged Peter’s shunning of gentile believers.
However did I manage to guess correctly? [And note that they somehow found a ‘Protestant’ to support their position—as if that makes it right. Smh.]
‘It’s not even certain that Paul was totally right and Peter completely wrong. The prominent Protestant scholar James D. G. Dunn wrote about this question (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 253-254), and pointed out that because we have only Paul’s report, we can’t finally decide who was right and wrong.
Dunn thinks the internal evidence of the passage provides clues suggesting that even Paul himself didn’t think he was decisively correct, over against Peter:
“[I]f Paul had won, and if Peter had acknowledged the force of his argument, Paul would surely have noted this, just as he had strengthened his earlier position by noting the approval of the ‘pillar apostles’ in 2.7-10.”
Dunn even goes so far as to assert: “it is quite likely that Paul was defeated at Antioch, that the church as a whole at Antioch sided with Peter rather than with Paul” (italics his own). If this is true, then obviously, the incident would provide no disproof for the papacy at all. Dunn notes that Paul also seemed to “change his tune” later on:
“[I]t can hardly go unnoticed that Paul’s advice to such communities in I Cor. 8,10.23 – 11.1, and Rom. 14.1 – 15.6 (not to mention his own practice according to Acts 21.20-26) is more in line with the policy of Peter and Barnabas at Antioch than in accord with his own strongly worded principle in Gal. 1.11-14!”’
(I never heard of Dunn, btw, but from this excerpt he sounds like a lightweight.)
http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2016/04/pauls-rebuke-peter-prove-peter-wasnt-infallible/
Okay, I educated myself re the James Dunn who isn’t convinced Paul was altogether right in rebuking Peter. I am now able to offer a one word summary:
Liberal.
The longer version: Liberal as the day is long.
‘The scariest part for some forum members is the lack of fear of God and His Word that they reveal in their posts.’
You summed it all up in one sentence. Where is the fear of God, in those who dare to contradict His divinely inspired, inerrant word? Why are people not scared witless to do this?
I often think of Isaiah’s reaction, when he saw the Lord God in all His holiness.
From Isaiah 6:
5 Then I said,
Woe is me, for I am ruined!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I live among a
people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.”
Isaiah lived before the blood of Jesus washed away the sins of those who believe in Him, and prior to the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. For these reasons, hopefully we will not consider ourselves “ruined,” when we see Him in the clouds.
Otoh, some meditation on Isaiah’s reaction is a good thing. It reminds us that we are but flesh, and God is holy in a way that we have never encountered holiness. It reminds us of our humble status.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,....
1 Cor 4:15
Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
What does Jesus say?
Mathew 23:9
7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be 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 do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
I have brought this to your attention before but you choose not to take it seriously..
Do you really believe the holy spirit told Paul to say what he said?
Do you believe it is alright for the Catholic`s to call all of their clergy father?
Do you believe it is alright for the Protestants to call their ministers Doctor and Reverend?
The words Jesus said could not possibly be any plainer, we do not need a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Romans 3:4
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”
That would be true even if Paul had not have said it as it is also not rocket science.
‘If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage,
They obviously do not love Christ anymore than the protestants do, they just love religion just like the Protestants do.
Why do so many people believe that the Catholic Church is the great whore that sitteth on many waters and the protestants are her daughters the prostitutes?
It’s noted you did not respond at all to post 1259 with the same thoughtful civility in which the post was addressed to you.
‘1 Cor 4:15
Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
What does Jesus say?
Mathew 23:9
7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be 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 do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.’
Try not to major in minors. When Jesus taught against calling abyone, ‘father,’ He was teaching against ***titles.*** Paul did not adopt the term as a *title.* He never instructed believers to call him ‘Father Paul.’ He was, in fact, never called, ‘Father Paul.’
If he had been, it would have been a sin. Jesus said so.
Moral equivalence is the cheap and mindless fallacy of liberals. If you think more prayerfully on the subject, you may find that moral equivalence is not the best explanation of the issues in play.
‘Why do so many people believe that the Catholic Church is the great whore that sitteth on many waters and the protestants are her daughters the prostitutes?’
Idk but I’ll take a guess. I just finished reading an account of the Catholic Church’s policy on burning Bibles and burning people. That is Satanic behavior. To the extent that certain non-Catholics also burned people, that too was Satanic behavior.
We’re told there will be many surprises on Judgement Day. Those who burned people in the name of God, and who did not subsequently repent, are liable to be among the surprised when they learn their fate.
abyone = anyone
It’s noted you did not respond at all to post 1259 with the same thoughtful civility in which the post was addressed to you.
My mind is not strong enough and i also am not inclined to try to answer a dozen questions in two minutes that it may have taken the writer a month to sort out.
Also before i could answer them i would first have to study the Catholic doctrine to assure myself that the questions were on the level.
I usually do not go to links, in this case i made an exception.
Try not to major in minors. When Jesus taught against calling abyone, ‘father,’ He was teaching against ***titles.*** Paul did not adopt the term as a *title.* He never instructed believers to call him ‘Father Paul.’ He was, in fact, never called, ‘Father Paul.’
Let Peter say the same thing and he would catch hell for preaching bogus doctrine which it is.
Idk but I’ll take a guess. I just finished reading an account of the Catholic Church’s policy on burning Bibles and burning people.
Do you know what agape is? Do you understand that burning people to death is the stone cold mirror opposite? What conclusion can you draw of a group—any group—that claimed to be Christian but that acted as unChristianly as it’s possible to act? [Please don’t get defensive with your reply. Recall that any so-called ‘Protestant’/’Protestant’ denomination that burned people to death is absolutely included in this category.]
Your exegetical method is not entirely consistent. When you see the word for ‘brother,’ you apply yourself to find out if you can’t find someone somewhere who says it means something other than, ‘brother.’ Otoh, when you see the word, ‘father,’ you appear to believe it can have but a single usage.
We know this is not the case. Jesus prayed, ‘Our Father who is in heaven.’ Elsewhere we see, ‘Joseph the father, as was supposed, of Jesus.’
Can you argue that these usages are identical? One refers to the Lord God. One refers to a man, a mere mortal.
Then there is the Matthew 23 passage. Can you read it in context and truthfully say that what is being discussed is spiritual or biological fatherhood?
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: ”The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader,that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
It’s impossible to read this passage in context and not see what it’s about. Jesus is forbidding us to appropriate titles that elevate one above another. Any title that can undercut our understanding of who God is must be eschewed.
For example, Jesus wants us to acknowledge Him as our teacher. If some human teaches us something, we can certainly acknowledge that. But we can’t bestow on them a title that will diminish our acknowledgement of Jesus as “the Good Teacher.”
Likewise with father. We’re not forbidden from acknowledging relationships. God knows we have biological fathers, and He would not criminalize our acknowledgement of this fact.
We can have a spiritual father, too, in the sense of someone who brought us to Christ. Acknowledging a spiritual relationship is not a sin.
What becomes a sin is the appropriation of a title for the purpose of differentiating one believer from another. Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees loved the title of Rabbi for the honor it bestowed. Similarly, we can’t appropriate the *title* of ‘father,’ because there is only One who merits such an honor.
Paul did not sin by acknowledging his spiritual fatherhood of those he had brought to faith in Christ. He would have sinned the instant he asked them to do him the honor of granting him the title, ‘father.’ That goes beyond the simple fact of his leading them to Christ; that takes the honor due exclusively to God and bestows it on a mere man.
We all know Paul never appropriated the title of father. He never asked those he had led to Christ to address him as Father Paul. Had he done so, it would have been a sin.
You are mistaken about Peter. Had he acknowledged spiritual fatherhood of those he had led to Christ there would be no issue. Had he asked believers to call him Father Peter, it would have been a sin. But of course he wouldn’t have done that. He had heard Jesus’ teaching firsthand, and he understood that the *title* of ‘fsther,’ was off limits to mere mortals.
I remained curious re the James Dunn who was cited by a Catholic site as questioning, in Paul’s rebuke of Peter, whether Paul was wholly in the right and Peter was wholly in the wrong. Further study reveals that Dunn rejects both divine inspiration and the Godship of Jesus.
Iow. The Bible is merely the thoughts and memories of mortal men, and Jesus, while a figure of some authority, was not God.
This is how low the apple barrel had to be scraped in order to buttress the, ‘Paul wasn’t entirely right in rebuking Peter,’ idea. Iow, TOO low.
When, to prop up certain doctrines or ideas, you find yourself siding with apostates, the doctrines and ideas need to be rethought. For insights into the word of God, the last person we should be turning to is one who denies the deity of Jesus.
We all know Paul never appropriated the title of father. He never asked those he had led to Christ to address him as Father Paul. Had he done so, it would have been a sin.
We also have a good portion of Christians calling their ministers Reverend (Most high) and many more calling them teachers or instructors.
Is there any one left who actually believes what Jesus said?
Excuses, excuses and more excuses Jesus plainly said we were not to use father, Rabbi,Teacher,or Instructor as a tittle, your argument about brothers and fathers spiritual or other wise just clouds the issue as Jesus is talking about tittles.
I could call my dad father if i was so inclined and would not be wrong, so we need to get away from all of the excuse`s.
you wrote
Can you argue that these usages are identical? One refers to the Lord God. One refers to a man, a mere mortal.
Why ask what any one knows just as i may have said different?
You wrote
When you see the word for ‘brother,’ you apply yourself to find out if you can’t find someone somewhere who says it means something other than, ‘brother.’
Wrong, i just could not help but to see what seemed a contradiction, i believed for many years just like you do because that is what i was taught in church by the Doctors,most high Reverends, Teachers and instructors.
Could it be that Jesus said some things just to see how far many of the so called know it all elites would go just to prove he did not say what he said or make him say something he did not say, just teasing.
But it is like they say (the proof is in the pudding ) the scripture Paul wrote is the pudding.
Making excuses is not going to change it as any one who reads the scriptures with prayer can see.
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.