Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I'm not guessing. It is the consistent teaching of the Church that Jesus was truly Mary's Son. If He did not get His humanity from His mother, where woudl He have gotten it?
it's in your churches tradition. Where did this come from. Scripture?
It is the consistent teaching of the Church. If you accept the Bible as ambiguous on the matter, then this is a good example of how "Sacred Tradition" helps us to understand Scripture.
And it does indeed make a huge difference, as I have said before, whether God assumes the human nature we already had, or if He started a new humanity. If He was not truly one of us, related by blood, then He could not have bridged the gap between God and man.
. No way could God have made him like He did Adam, huh?
Why is this point not coming across? Is there any NC out there who can help me make this point?
Cindy, I ask and state quite clearly the idea that if Jesus was not related to us, then He was not "one of us." And if He is not "one of us" then He is not Our Redeemer.
Do you understand this argument? What difficulties do you have with it?
Do you think that God Incarnating Jesus from existing, fallen humanity is different from "making" Jesus from scratch, like Adam was?
SD
Please cross-reference the Last Supper, where Jesus fills in the details about the Bread being His Body.
Also, in John 6, Jesus tells us that the Bread that He will give is His Flesh for the life of the world.
It's not that hard to put the pieces together.
My point is that it is clear that JESUS did use figurative language in this discussion (i.e. I am the Bread of Life).
Obviously, JESUS is not physical bread (i.e. composed of ground cereal grains, moistened, and baked). But JESUS is saying in this passage that, in some way, He is the Bread of Life.
When, later in this same discussion, JESUS says that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, in order to have everlasting life, the question again arises. Is JESUS using figurative language here also, as He did earlier in the dialogue.
I would agree that this is a valid discussion, however, I would argue that the case for JESUS' use of figurative language, in this instance, is more compelling.
I believe this because ...a.) JESUS' usage of figurative language in this instance would be consistent with His similar usages throughout His ministry (as testified to by the disciple John), as well as earlier in this particular passage.
b.) If the issue of a valid Transustantiation was correct and was central to the issue of Christianity, I would have expected that the Apostles would have been much clearer in their writings that this was so.
c.) Certainly, I would expect that JESUS own words (as recorded by the Apostles), would have been more reflective of the centrality of the teaching (like, say His words were on the issue of belief).
Dave was spinning as usually and twisting my words and refusing to answer questions. This is not a catholic issue as far as I'm concerned. It's Dave in his own little world, making the rules up as he goes along.
This I'm hurt by.
When was I spinning? Even better, what questions of yours have I refused to answer?
Furthermore, if you think I am not representing authentic Catholic teachign and am instead just making up stuff as I go along, then provide me with either the Cahtolic documents against me, or with the numerous Catholics here on FR who have disagreed with me.
SD
Yall preach tradition to us all the time but let a fundamentalist, ONE TIME, step out and you tell them to get back in the book?
Yes. Those are your rules. "Bible only" is not a Catholic precept. We can expect you to abide by your own precepts, right?
SD
My point is that this is not figurative language. He is truly the Bread of Life.
Obviously, JESUS is not physical bread (i.e. composed of ground cereal grains, moistened, and baked). But JESUS is saying in this passage that, in some way, He is the Bread of Life.
Jesus comes to us physically under the appearance of physical bread. He is truly the Bread we eat to gain Life.
When, later in this same discussion, JESUS says that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, in order to have everlasting life, the question again arises. Is JESUS using figurative language here also, as He did earlier in the dialogue.
He did not use figurative language earlier.
I would agree that this is a valid discussion, however, I would argue that the case for JESUS' use of figurative language, in this instance, is more compelling.
Only when you don't add in the Last Supper, to decode the meaning. Jesus says I am Bread from Heaven. Jesus says "you must eat my flesh."
Then, at the Supper, He takes the bread and says "this is my body." It all clicks together.
a.) JESUS' usage of figurative language in this instance would be consistent with His similar usages throughout His ministry (as testified to by the disciple John), as well as earlier in this particular passage.
Jesus used non-figurative language in His ministry as well. We must discern which is which. And there is no figurative language earlier in the passage.
If the issue of a valid Transustantiation was correct and was central to the issue of Christianity, I would have expected that the Apostles would have been much clearer in their writings that this was so.
Well, I would think that if salvation was by faith alone that the phrase would appear in the Bible more than the one time when it says salvation is not by faith alone.
Likewise, I woudl think that the principle of "Bible alone" would be made explicit somewhere as well.
I guess we'll have to deal with the fact that the Text is not as clear as we would like it. That's not a problem for me, I'm not the one teachign that it is.
Certainly, I would expect that JESUS own words (as recorded by the Apostles), would have been more reflective of the centrality of the teaching (like, say His words were on the issue of belief).
Why do you seperate the Eucharist from belief? Yes, we need to believe. And when we believe we need to do what He told us. And He told us to do this in His memory.
SD
It is not necessary to have commited actual personal sins in order to be baptised. Being born with Original Sin is enough to keep you out of Heaven
So now an innocent baby will go to hell, if not baptized because born into sin?
We don't know what happens. All we know is that Baptism is given to us for this purpose, to remove Original Sin.
You have already posted that you don't believe this is so.
The Catechism has been posted about this many times. We teach that you must get baptised to enter in to Heaven. But we also teach a merciful God. So we leave it up to Him to figure out how to handle the "innocent" dead.
You never did answer my question. How old were you the last time you were baptized?
We believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I was baptised before my first birthday.
SD
Paul instructs him to act with all authority.
That's right ALL authority. NO POPE. Each pastor has all authority over his flock.
You don't really believe this. If you did you might become Orthodox or Anglican.
But you believe that the Holy Spirit gives you an understanding that makes you the authority over your pastor.
SD
When I was still a RC I remember Cardinal Cushing saying the Rosary. He could mumble his way through the whole thing in mere seconds. The fact that there was no time for any human to meditate at that speed is meaningless to you isn't it?
Reggie, you don't get it. It is not the words one is meditating on. Not at all.
SD
I spend a lot of time contemplating his word, the history of man, and how awe struck i am at his Genius as an inventor.
Contemplating, good.
If she memorized a long phrase and repeated it so fast you couldn't hear what she said, how long would that please you?
Using repeated prayers to aid meditation, bad.
SD
Fact is the advantage of formal prayer is that some people are virtually inarticulate. Certainly a personal, handwritten greeting is nice, but Hallmark has made billions because many people cannot express themselves well.
Well said, though it will be misunderstood, of course.
You mean no Charles' Wesley either? No psalms, or hymns?
Written, preplanned prayers, good.
Written, preplanned songs, bad.
SD
SD
How is it, do you suppose, that people can quote these hacks like Tertullian and be utterly unaware of whome they are quoting and assuming someone will buy as authoritative. I marvel at the audacity of it. I keep wondering if people can really be this ignorant of that which they presume to educate us of - or if not ignorant, then so audacious as to knowingly push falsehood and lies as truth. It angers me just thinking about it. Sorry, just sounding off. Any thoughts?
You're not very self-aware, are you?
SD
I was standing in line at a walmart one day about 7 years ago now, and I had the urge to rebuke the devil suddenly. The guy in front of me was so surrounded in evil that I just wanted to run to get away from him. He turned and looked at me while conversing with the attendant and he was wearing a collar. Episcopal I believe. He said 'God bless', to which I could only reply, "and I hope you find him."
Wow. All you NCs out there see this?
Havoc has the ability to peer into souls and see who is "surrounded in evil." Do y'all believe that?
S
Yes, we make the distinction as well. Those who came after the Apostles are not apostles. But they do inherit the authority of the office. Not a limited (how?) authority of a "bishop" as opposed to apostolic authority, but the full authority given by Jesus to His Twelve.
They, obviously, did not inherit the foundational ministry of the Apostles, since JESUS and the Apostles completed that particular ministry and all other valid ministry is built upon that already established foundation.1 Corinthians 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ."(Didn't these very bishops hundreds of years later establish the canon?)
EPHESIANS 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.
Yes ... as directed by God, bishops established the collection of pre-existing Apostolic writings.
They wrote nothing (canonically) new, nor taught anything which was not contained within these Apostolic writings which God established through their service.
This is so bogus! It's watered down and weak and leaves you not knowing much of anything.
What prior event does Acts 15:7 refer to? Prior to Mt 10:5? You seem to claim this, as you imply that the instruction to the twelve superceeds that event. I think that you are incorrect. The clearest connection is Peters dream of the unclean animals. You also seem to attempt to distinguish Peter from Paul here: "not the Gentiles exclusively. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles" since Paul also taught Jews as well as Gentiles there is no basis for this.
To "prove" Peter would not have been in Rome Havoc can say "Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles" - but when the Apostle Peter says: "God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." We really all (even you) need to pick Peter over Havoc, don't you think?
You forget that Havoc is a prophet. He has full understanding of all Scripture and has little need to piffle with the questions and traps of us little people.
SD
2+2 =4. If there's a 2nd death, must mean there is a first one. duh.
I don't see how you can distinguish between a lyric and a formal prayer during worship services. I must say that I have "a thing" about extempraneous prayers, since they often seem to be more directed AT other people than God.
Robby, I think that many modern Catholics, and certainly most NCs do nto know that the entire "worship service" we have is designed to be sung.
That we typically speak most of it does not change the nature of the Mass from that of a sung prayer.
SD
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.