Posted on 11/28/2017 12:09:34 PM PST by ebb tide
Elsie, I need your aw shucks picture. 😊
> Please cite the passages from the Torah that state that.
Nobody is obligated to accept your say so, which amounts to nothing more than your opinion, without substantiation from the Torah itself.
My commenting time is limited. I will not repeat what I wrote.
> I am glad I could help. Feel free to holler at me again. I don’t believe the way you do, but that doesn’t mean we cannot discuss issues from time to time.
I appreciate that. Stay well.
What, you can’t even do a simple copy/paste, but you can take the time to say you don’t have time?
Suspicious!
Thank you. Same to you. 👍
“The Roman rite and the Eastern Orthodox disagree over some basics of the faith as well.”
Yes, but members of the Roman Rite do not claim to be Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to be members of the Roman Rite. Protestants are Protestants. And those Protestants almost universally claim to be sola scriptura followers yet they sometimes disagree on very basic things. If you’re honest, you’ll admit that what usually happens on FR is that there will be one of two results: 1) Protestants will clash with one another, 2) if there is a Catholic involved the Protestants will claim the glaring difference between Protestants is actually not an important matter of the faith after all. How is that logically consistent?
“And both claim to be Catholicism in it’s original form with the other group being schismatic.”
Well, most Catholics and even many Eastern Orthodox will not say that the other is “schismatic” today. After all they are following their designated bishops. I understand what you’re saying, however, I don’t think your analogy works. Any logical person could see how Churches separated since 1054 - who had issues between them dating back centuries before that - could develop different views. But why is it so quick to happen among Protestants - especially when they claim to be sola scriptura people (in other words, they’re using the same source for final authority)?
A town I lived in some years ago had two Presbyterian churches. One of them was large and traditional and the other was a different denomination and liberal. The larger traditional one ended up in some sort of theological spat with in itself. A group broke off and they named their new church after the main issue of the theological spat (although they also still call themselves Presbyterians). All of this happened almost over night when you speak in terms of the long history of the Church. That’s the Protestant way. It’s not “Reformed and Still Reforming”, it’s “Fragmenting and Still Fragmenting”.
“So which one is right and why?”
I don’t believe for a single second that you believe either one is right or that either one could be right. The logical problem with that belief on your part is that Protestantism can’t possibly be right since Christ didn’t found it and a German monk did only 500 years ago.
“Your criticism of Prots disagreeing as making anything they believe invalid falls flat in light of Catholicism and its many flavors.”
No, my “criticism” of Protestants “disagreeing” stands and always will - precisely because their disagreeing shows the utter logical hopelessness of sola scriptura.
“For that matter, we can’t even get all the Catholics within the Roman rite to agree on whether Francis is a legitimate pope.”
He is a legitimate pope. You don’t have to get people to agree to it. He is one whether they agree or not. And I don’t even agree with Pope Francis on many of the things he says or does - but he is the legitimate pope. Truth cannot be merely subjective.
“And according to previous popes and Unum Sanctum, that’s pretty basic.”
It sure is. And that’s the point. But the vast majority of Catholics - and ALL of the Catholic hierarchy recognize the pope as legitimate. Case closed. But popes die. There will be a new one in a few years. A much more grave situation is when you can’t get Protestant denominations to agree on what happens in Baptism. 1) Baptism is a PERENNIAL thing. It’s been practiced for 2,000 years. No pope will hold the office for more than 30 or so years EVER. Popes come and go. Baptism stays. It matters much more what people think about Baptism then whether or not they like or dislike a particular pope! 2) If something happens in Baptism it has eternal significance. No particular pope’s popularity does. If something happens in Baptism it could effect or affect me forever and if I don’t receive it, it could affect or effect me forever. The popularity of a particular pope - or even the legitimacy of one - effects and affects me not in the least in terms of my eternal destiny. This was shown rather clearly in the Great Schism of the West 600 years ago. That’s the difference.
No Vlad, I was making a joke.
I understand you do not do humor. Others understood immediately.
In the end, it was funnier because of your lack of humor and the shared experience with others. I can be thankful for that.
Sirach isn't inspired Scripture. Consequently not part of the canon. Consequently, I will put it on foods that need a kick.
Your post illustrates why I came up with the Rules. I think this post touches on all of them. Have a good one vlad.
IOW, there’s NOTHING.
So I have no reason whatsoever to give any credence in the least to your claims.
Odd how you found time to make snarky comments about others and participate in the discussion.
If it’s in the Torah, it should only take minutes to find and post. Nobody is asking for a dissertation. We are asking for God’s word. If you can’t be bothered to post that, there’s nothing.
I’m also not asking you to repeat what YOU wrote.
I want to know what GOD wrote that you claim He did that you claim validates your position.
“Yes, but.....”
pffftttt........
“Your post illustrates why I came up with the Rules.”
Your post illustrates that you will not address any of the points made. You really can’t. You didn’t read post #430 did you? You really didn’t know that aMorePerfectUnion was mocking a book of the Bible by calling it “Siracha sauce”, right?
Yeah, that’s obvious.
“I think this post touches on all of them. Have a good one vlad.”
And your response - ignoring the points I made - shows exactly what I have said about you: You do not care about getting things right. You do not care about the truth.
You what think Luther is to blame for the current dumpster fire occuring at The Vatican.
“No Vlad, I was making a joke.”
Yes, you were mocking a book of the Bible as a condiment. I know. I never said you were not making a joke about the Bible. I know you were. That’s the point.
“I understand you do not do humor.”
I do not mock the Bible. You do. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a sense of humor. I just don’t mock the Bible. You do.
“Others understood immediately.”
Other anti-Catholics shared in your mocking of the Bible. Yes, I understand. Why would they act any differently than you? Why would they not mock the Bible as you did? That’s exactly the kind of behavior I expect from your set.
“In the end, it was funnier because of your lack of humor and the shared experience with others. I can be thankful for that.”
Sure, you can be thankful that I did not participate in your mocking of the Bible while other anti-Catholics did. Yes, thankful. That’s what you’re thankful for - mocking the Bible.
“Sirach isn’t inspired Scripture.”
Actually, it is. Only Protestants - and not even all of them - believe otherwise.
“Consequently not part of the canon.”
No, it’s most definitely part of the canon - in East and West. Latter-day newcomers like Protestants don’t get to create new canons.
“Consequently, I will put it on foods that need a kick.”
Keep mocking God’s Word. Your reward will be your own.
“pffftttt........”
That’s perfectly emblematic of your level of argumentation here.
Did you miss the scene when Saul had the prophet summoned by the medium/witch of Endor?
There is, according to Scripture only One mediator between Man and God, the man Christ Jesus.
LOL!!! That refers to *Salvation*: note that Man is in English, "the mass of people" or '"humankind."
Look at it like this:
Like you've never asked anyone to pray for you.
Or prayed for a non-saved friend to come to Christ.
You might even note Stephen in Acts, while being stoned, prayed, "Do not hold this sin against them." That was mediating.
Amen
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.