Posted on 11/28/2017 12:09:34 PM PST by ebb tide
The commandments are not numbered in any ancient mss.
Their numbering is arbitrary according to the tradition someone accepts. Catholics and Lutherans and some Anglicans follow an Augustinian model of numbering.
https://steubenvilleconferences.com/10-commandments
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.HTM
It’s the information age. Learn how to participate in it.
Just before Jesus died he said it is finished
The only thing left to do was for the apostles
To wait for Pentecost and the holy spirit and
then preach the gospel as he had taught them.
I believe the claims of Jesus or Mary appearing
To some one is lies.
Maybe imaginations but lies just the same, and even
dubious about Paul.
Jesus had to have twelve witnesses as to his deeds,
Actions death, burial and resurrection.
But it seems any one else can make any kind of crazy
Claim they want and the religion worshipers will eat it up.
Scripture only
We've lived through it! Use however you like and modify however you like.
Like the fallback of *God can do anything He wants* is some sort of substantiative argument that He DID do something.......
These type of claims have all the validity of claiming that putting a slice of pizza in each shoe makes you holy.
It’s got nothing to do with numbers. Catholics love them so graven images. So it was either give up the graven images or drop the commandment. They dropped commandment. As for the Information Age, it works in my favor, not yours, since anyone with eyes can see:
“The Roman Catholic revision is obvious: The Vatican eliminates the second commandment against idolatry, and subdivides the tenth commandment against covetousness in order to keep the number of commandments at ten.”
No, it merely follows your argument, which was that since God showed grace in renting the veil in the temple then it allows for the possibility of God providing other channels for His Grace=PTCBIH. In short, since God could do it, then it supports Catholicism saying He did it.
Likewise, since God's grace abounds, and will seat overcomers in His throne, (Rv. 3:21) and He has all power in Heaven, then believers could inhabit other planets, one of which could be called Kolob, thus supporting Mormonic literature which teaches of it being "nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets..." (Abraham 3:1-9)
Mormons could argue there is nothing that would forbid this in Scripture, and while the whole thing is absurd, it illustrates what extrapolation out of your single principle (God has and can give more grace) might do. Other Catholic also extrapolate PTCBIH us being blessed with all spiritual blessings in heaven. (Eph. 1:3) Read into that what you need, despite the evidence (or lack thereof) to the contrary, or stop Catholics from putting words in Scripture's mouth. That's dishonest.
The problem is that you are accepting Sola Scriptura not only as axiomatic, but exclusive.
Oh I see: so after vainly appealing to Scripture yourself by being met with the incongruent utter absence of even one example of this most basic common practice, you must attack the premise that substantiation from Scripture is requires, and instead must do what I basically told you to do, just admit this is received by tradition from your fathers.
Yet my argument need not rest on SS, but on what is manifestly reasonable. For even it you do not hold to SS, yet seeing how much attention that the Holy Spirit of God gives to prayer, and even instruction on who to address, and how basic and common PTCBIH is for Catholics, which they imagine the NT church was, and how many beings were available to pray to, and occasions of need wherein it would be expected, and how much the NT relies upon Scriptural substantiation, then the utter absence among over 200 prayers of it is highly incongruous, and it is hardly reasonable to dismiss this with, "well, not everything is written down."
That is, apparently you think that "if it's necessary for salvation, it's in Scripture" implies that ONLY those things explicitly in Scripture have any validity;
That is not what i said or inferred, but argued for a manifest example in the light of this basic common practice for which there are multitudinous examples but none of PTCBIH. If someone wanted to argue that born again believers in the Bible could also communicate telepathically ("all spiritual blessings...) they would have the same problem is multitudes of examples of oral or written communication, but none of telepathy (outside of a rare vision from God). And this is not a matter of whether or not there will be pets in Heaven.
And thus i also argued at length from principle, of what we would expect from Hebrews in particular, and how instead it is Christ whom the believer is directed to as intercessor, and by whom the believer has immediate direct access with boldness into the holy of holies by Him. In addition, unlike a doctrine like the Trinity which is supported by clear statements as well as what is implied and demanded in the face of otherwise contradictions, there is no need for belief in PTCBIH, besides the lack of explicit or actual implied references to PTCBIH.
it then *appears* (from what you write) that you think 1) if someone denies Sola Scriptura, they must be open to any and all outside-of-Scripture ideas
No, but your argument based on God giving more grace does not help. Yet the reality is that writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa. It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
2 Chronicles 34:30-31) And thus even the veracity of apostolic preaching was subject to examination by Scripture as supreme, unlike Rome presumes.
2) They believe all these things are "supposed" to be given equal weight with Scripture.
No, I argued to the contrary, that a most basic common practice for which there is abundant examples would expect to have at least one of the kind of basic common practice Catholics engage in. This is not like arguing if a form of cannibalism can ever be allowed.
I find it singularly difficult to decry anything about this image, or the accompanying explanation, as heretical, or leading people away from salvation.
Saying something is expressly the words of Christ as a public revelation need not be heretical in what is says in order to be wrong, while the kind of promises given to ongoing veneration of a painting is contrary to what Scripture says and shows, in which victory is not by looking at what is seen, though illustrations van be helpful, but by faith in what is not seen. (2 Corinthians 4:6,18; Heb. 12:2) ) Moreover, this private but public revelation" is not that of a officially sanctioned pervasive Catholic practice. .
I just said every thing i have compared
is the same, including
Calling no man on earth father.
I also said I have not been into it very much,
Guess I will have to make a better
Effort because from what I have seen so far just
Backs up the king jAmes.
The 'Mary' that I "quoted" isn't!
> what does HaShem mean.
It is forbidden by Torah Law to write holy names for no reason. One who pronounces the Explicit Name will be uprooted from the world. HaShem literally means “The Name.” It is an acceptable way of referring to G-d without violating the prohibition of blasphemy.
So upthread you criticized me for cherry picking verses when I posted one or two, posting them *out of context*.
So now I post them IN context, and you are criticizing me for posting *book length technicolor rants* that you admit that you don't even bother to read.
That begs the question.
Can anyone do anything good enough for you?
Let’s examine your errors one at a time.
“It’s got nothing to do with numbers.”
Clearly it does have something to do with numbers since: 1) the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 (and again in Deuteronomy 5:4-20) are NOT enumerated, but elsewhere we are told there are TEN and we know that not all of them begin with “Thou shall not” so that doesn’t help us in the enumeration of them as ten distinct laws. It does not bode well that your first sentence is your first error.
“Catholics love them so graven images.”
And Lutherans too? I mean since they use the same numbering as Catholics that would have to be the case wouldn’t it? Or, more likely, you’re simply wrong. After all the Eastern Orthodox WHO VENERATE IMAGES ALL THE TIME have the same numbering you do and not the same one Catholics have. That pretty much shoots you’re obviously biased reasoning all to hell now doesn’t it? Thus, we see that the only thing that could have led to your second sentence is an error in reasoning on your part.
“So it was either give up the graven images or drop the commandment. They dropped commandment.”
But they didn’t. It’s right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church right after paragraph 2051. Here, I’ll include a link to it and this will demonstrably prove you wrong - which was inevitable of course: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm
“As for the Information Age, it works in my favor, not yours, since anyone with eyes can see:”
Well, no one with the ability to reason will see it that way since all you’re doing is cutting and pasting from an anti-Catholic webpage that posts the same falsehoods you do:
“The Roman Catholic revision is obvious: The Vatican eliminates the second commandment against idolatry, and subdivides the tenth commandment against covetousness in order to keep the number of commandments at ten.”
Here’s the anti-Catholic webpage you refused to link to. Perhaps you wanted to hide something? http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/web/articleid/64839/columnid/5444/default.asp
Now, let’s look at the errors of what you cut and pasted without attribution:
“The Roman Catholic revision is obvious: The Vatican eliminates the second commandment against idolatry, and subdivides the tenth commandment against covetousness in order to keep the number of commandments at ten.”
Except it’s ALL right here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm So, why would they lie when it is so obvious that it is a lie? And remember, it was St. Augustine, NOT THE VATICAN, that first numbered them as we have them now. So why does your anti-Catholic webpage say it was the “Vatican”???
It’s the Information Age. You can try to hide sources, but they can be found.
“Sure Vlad! Whatever you claim.”
What I posted was true.
A side by side comparison is what it is.
All else is obfuscations, denial, and smoke.
Right here, buddy: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm There’s your side-by-side - all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
And what I posted earlier is irrefutable. If you’re going to suggest the Traditional Catechetical Formula was created by the Catholic Church because Catholics have lots of images, then you logically have to deal with the following facts or questions:
1) Why then don’t the Eastern Orthodox have a similar Traditional Catechetical Formula when they too VENERATE IMAGES?
2) If St. Augustine came up with the order used in the Traditional Catechetical Formula why would anyone but a moron say it was “the Vatican” who came up with it? Oh, and when did that happen exactly? Who was pope then? Oh, that’s right you’re putting forward a myth so those questions can’t be answered.
3) If someone was trying to hide something why on earth would they publish it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it is used in high schools, colleges, parish classes, seminary classes, and is easily found online for free by anyone? I just looked online and according to the website I’ll link to (unlike you in your post) between 1997 and 2012 the “USCCB alone having sold more than 988,000 print copies of the second edition.” http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-107.cfm
You’ve flailed sufficiently.
Give it up. What is, is.
I’m not replying to you any more.
“I’m not replying to you any more.”
You don’t have to. The questions I posted are enough to show that your claims were false and nonsensical. Nothing else needs to be said on the subject.
No, it doesn’t go along with the KJV.
[4] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:
Let me know.
But there's more to this recipe:
16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
Kokaubeam may be Hawaiian for confectionery sugar. See what you are missing when you think there is so much more inspired revelation besides the Bible as divined by scurrilous Smith? But despite Mormonic faith, the Book of Abraham is dismissed as fake.
It appears you worked 2 of your Famous Rules into this claim:
Vlad’s Rules of Internet Debate #3...it means what he wants it to mean.
Vlad’s Rules of Debate #2....have a massive ego and approach others with a condescending attitude …see his tagline (Apparently I’m still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn’t empty).
All I can say is, sure vlad! Whatever you claim.
Ping to ealgeone, recorder and keeper of Vlad's Rules of Internet Debate
:-)
Or a Hawaiian hardwood...
Of course, the apostles did not have the New Testament.
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.