10 Commandments, graven images

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saint_Michael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, that is true, but he wasn’t promised to be there that same day, that is actually impossible. If we take a quick look at it, you’ll see what i mean.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luk 23:43 KJV)

This looks good enough, until you put this scripture beside it:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
(Joh 20:17 KJV)

This is in chronological order… And on top Jesus says that the thief should join Him in paradise TO DAY… how can this be, when Jesus STILL HADN’T gone to heaven the third day? This means, that the first verse should actually read: “Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise” If not, that would make our Lord a liar. But of course this is not so, Jesus just confirmed that this criminal was forgiven, and a life in paradise was awaiting him when Jesus came back for the second time to get His faithful.

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal
You forget a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.

Time is no barrier to God. It may have seem like three days to those on earth, but in the realm of the spirits, it probably only took a micro second to visit hell, preach, and then open the gates of heaven.
 
You forget a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.

Time is no barrier to God. It may have seem like three days to those on earth, but in the realm of the spirits, it probably only took a micro second to visit hell, preach, and then open the gates of heaven.
it’s so easy to twist scripture, isn’t it? twist is so it fits what you are taught to believe by the church. By the priests and pope, who are to be seen as God Himself… I can twist it like this too, to make it say that i can sin as much as i want to, as long as i dont have to keep to the bible alone…

what makes this discussion difficult is that catholics don’t regard the bible as the absolute truth that are to be followed before anything else… You also have to follow tradition, and this screws up everything. For as long as a pope can say something is absolute truth, you have to accept that, since he is the “vicar of God”… Wich i most certainly dont believe. The church puts fallable men in charge of what is supposed to be God’s true church, and let them govern it as their own little playground. And also let them, and accept that they change even God’s ten commandments… I am baffled…

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal
 
Thats a bit if a crock, Cet.
If the Pope’s interpretation is fallible, then so is yours.
If you are infallible, can’t I say the Pope is infallible too.

The heart of this is that Jesus Christ never wrote one single word himself, to you. What He left you was the Living Church He founded, in place of a library of ‘Manuals on How to Save Yourself’. His Church is a mystical creation, in a real way it is His body - Saul, Saul why do you persecute Me, when Saul was persecuting the young Church he was confronted with the reality that he was attacking Him personally.
Into this same Church He had just founded, as a type of His living body, He sent His Holy Spirit to guide Her as she grew - from Her conception, continuously, until the end of time.
She is, through Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, now ‘bone of My bones, and flesh of My flesh; She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man’.
The new Eve - created anew from the new Adam.
She was to be His Bride. - ‘And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband’.
 
it’s so easy to twist scripture, isn’t it? twist is so it fits what you are taught to believe by the church. By the priests and pope, who are to be seen as God Himself… I can twist it like this too, to make it say that i can sin as much as i want to, as long as i dont have to keep to the bible alone…

what makes this discussion difficult is that catholics don’t regard the bible as the absolute truth that are to be followed before anything else… You also have to follow tradition, and this screws up everything. For as long as a pope can say something is absolute truth, you have to accept that, since he is the “vicar of God”.… Wich i most certainly dont believe. The church puts fallable men in charge of what is supposed to be God’s true church, and let them govern it as their own little playground. And also let them, and accept that they change even God’s ten commandments… I am baffled…

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal
When did the pope become vicar of God???

There is NO such title for the pope. That is a made up title. People MADE IT UP to help prove their believes about the pope.
Pope Fiction:
But there are problems with this. The first is that Vicarius Filii Dei, or “Vicar of the Son of God,” is not now, nor has it ever been, a title of the bishop of Rome. The second problem is that virtually no one, including many unsuspecting lay Catholics, knows that this papal “title” is a fabrication. To an untrained ear, it sounds enough like one of the pope’s real titles, Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ), to pass the test. For more from pope fiction see: envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/mar_apr98_coverstory.html
Here are what the POPE REAL TITLES are:

The titles of His Holiness, the Pope, in the order they are used in the Annuario Pontificio:

Bishop of Rome
Vicar of Christ
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
Servant of the Servants of God

Formerly used
Patriarch of the West (dropped 2006)
Vicar of the Apostolic See

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Formerly_used

The title you gave for the pope “victor of God” is NOT on the list.
 
Dear cet,
Please don’t misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church as in your last post. The pope does not misrepresent the bible or twist truths. As the gospel of Matthew says, Christ will build HIS CHURCH. We do not build it ourselves. If the Holy Spirit wants His Church to be without teaching error then then He can do something about it which He has done. I ask you, why can’t the Holy Spirit use the temporal head of the Church on earth to teach the truth of the Church ? That is certainly appropriate and necessary. And by the way, the Bible and Holy Tradition come from the same source so there is no differences.
mdcpensive1
 
Yeah this whole thing is based on a well known forgery called “Donation of Constantine
By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church.
This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, “The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy”, Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his “Annales Ecclesiastici” (ad an. 324) admitted that the “Donatio” was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized.
You really should do your own homework and not trust wherever you got this from.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,
 
Vicar of Christ
What is this? What does it mean? And why does the pope take this title if he’s not the vicar of christ?

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal
 
hehe… thanks… english can be difficult sometimes. 🙂
I understand 🙂
“For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ.” Colossians 2:12
Romans 6 would also make the same point. But those of us who deny the necessity of baptism by immersion don’t deny its greater symbolism; we simply recognize that there are cases in which immersion is a problem.
“At that time Jesus came from Nazareth and was baptized by John in the river.” Mark 1:9
The traditional verse to quote on that would be Mark 1:10, actually, which says “As Jesus was coming up out of the water…” But neither verse 9 or 10 states emphatically that Christ was baptized by immersion; even if it did, that doesn’t indicate that the only way to be baptized is by immersion.

Even the Catholic Church teaches that the best way to be baptized is by immersion; not because the sacrament is more efficacious that way, but because the symbolism (of being buried with Christ and subsequently resurrected with him) is more visible.
When isn’t immersion avaiable?
When someone is lying on their deathbed. I remember it was quite an obstacle for G. K. Chesterton, who weighed right around 400 pounds, if I remember correctly. It could be a problem for infants, if the water is cold enough to risk illness. It could be a problem during drought, or in the desert, where water is a precious commodity.
It all depends on how the church accomodates for it. If they, for instance, had made a basin for it in church, it wouldn’t be a problem at all.
All of those problems above would still apply 🙂

To Be Continued…
 
And infant baptism is not biblical
It’s not non-biblical. In fact, all biblical evidence that exists on the issue points toward the baptism of infants and children in households.
it is supposed to be a conscious pact with God
That’s the part where you’re reading your own denominational teaching into the Bible. Baptism is the sacrament of faith: therefore faith is required for the sacrament to be applied. But nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that the faith must be the faith of the one being baptized! This is analagous to the situation the paralytic was in, the one who was let in through the ceiling so that Jesus could heal him. Jesus told him that his friends’ faith had healed him, not his own. Likewise, when infants are baptized, it is the parents’ faith, and the Church’s faith, that heals the infant, not his or her own.
and infants are not able to make this pact on behalf of itself, so someone is making it for them.
Just like the paralytic, still healed by Christ because of the faith of his friends.
This is not the biblical way of doing it…
You’re reading more into the Bible than is there.
Remember how it was for the etheopian in the bible;
Acts 8:36-38
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
The italicized text (the part you were using to make your point :)) is only in later texts, not in the earliest, most reliable manuscripts we have. That’s why you won’t find it in many modern Bibles.

Apart from that, even the Catholic Church teaches this: for someone who has reached the age of reason (i.e., the ability to reason), it must be his faith that compells him to be baptized. A non-believer cannot be baptized because he disbelieves. But infants aren’t non-believers; to the extent that they are able to believe, they can (and do) believe. The earliest memory I have is from when I was a mere three years old, and my dad was doing poorly in his New Testament Greek class (he’d missed the first week do to illness) and was crying about it, since he’d gotten a 4.0 earlier in college; he picked me up and I said to him, “Don’t cry Daddy, Jesus loves you.” I was three years old! And I understood the idea that Jesus existed, and that He loved me (and my Daddy :)) Who is anyone to deny me baptism, even at that young age?

Infants know their parents years before they can reason; an infant child can tell the smell and sound of his mother from any other woman in a heartbeat. Why, then, can an infant not know his spiritual Father until he’s able to reason? Why do you add an additional requirement (not in the Bible) that a person must have an explicit, rational faith before he can be baptized?

Not to mention the fact that Baptism, the new form of circumcision, was done to Jewish males to bring them into covenant on their eighth day. I can go on and on about the reasons justifying infant baptism, but rest assured: the 2,000 year old practice has not violated Scripture, only the theologically innovative interpretations of a few since the Reformation.
Infant baptism comes from paganism, witch is provable.
No, it’s not provable; infant baptism comes from infant circumcision, and from the Jewish mindset that insists that children follow the religion of their parents. The idea of a parent being a member of the Church (by baptism) but his child not being a member of the Church would be utterly ridiculous to the Jewish mind.
An adult baptism is biblical practice, and you can see this being practised over and over again.
Household baptism was a biblical practice as well, and even though the word “household” clearly applied to children, nowhere a household baptism is mentioned does any biblical author so much as mention that infants weren’t present or that infants weren’t baptized. Anyone reading the Bible with first-century eyes can clearly see that if infants exist in a household, they would be baptized.
And even Jesus Christ made himself an example for us, by getting baptized himself.
No one’s arguing that baptism is unnecessary for salvation; in fact, Catholics are some of the few who will uphold that doctrine these days.
It is a symbolical act
Not just “a symbolical act.” It’s a salvific act: “Baptism now saves you.”
to show that we are buried with Christ, and raised with Christ.
“as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” It’s not just a symbol, it’s an efficacious act.

Jeremy
 
Vicar of Christ
What is this? What does it mean? And why does the pope take this title if he’s not the vicar of christ?

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal
 
The pope IS the “vicar of Christ”. The pope IS NOT the “vicar of God”. I just was pointing that out to you. I also at the same time gave you a source that showed that the title “Vicar of the son of God” is a lie, a fabrication.

So now that we know that the title “Vicar of God” is not used. Let’s talk about one of titles that is used by the pope, “Vicar of Christ”

What does it mean to be Vicar of Christ?
Well from dictionary.com we know that Vicar means: person who acts in place of another
Therefore Vicar of Christ means is a person who acts in the place of Christ.

What does it mean when Catholics say that the pope, acts in the place of Christ, is the “Vicar of Christ”? First the title “Vicar of Christ” refers to the pope’s Divine commission.

Divine Commission, what does that mean???
Well to understand that one would have to understand the role that Peter had and one would have to understand what is Apostolic Succession, from a Catholic Prospective.

May I suggest that you read the following web-links. Read them twice, once for the head and once for the heart. STOP—BEFORE YOU CHECK OUT THE LINKS, SAY A PRAYER: ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT TO BE WITH YOU.
Church and Papacy
The Pope and the Church
Apostolic Authority and the Pope

Again read the links twice. Read it once for the head. Read it once for the heart. Oh, and before you read them, DO ASK the HOLY SPIRIT to be with you.
 
it’s so easy to twist scripture, isn’t it?
Yes, and we’re warned in 2 Peter that the ignorant and unstable will do so. That’s why we have the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, to show us the correct interpretation of the Bible.
twist is so it fits what you are taught to believe by the church.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth; the only way to “untwist” the Bible is to reading it with the eyes of the Church.
as long as i dont have to keep to the bible alone.
Christianity never was and never has been a “Bible alone” religion.
what makes this discussion difficult is that catholics don’t regard the bible as the absolute truth that are to be followed before anything else.
Absolutely false! What makes this discussion difficult is your insistence that the Bible means what you want it to mean, regardless of whether history supports your doctrine, whether the first-century Christians held to your doctrine, or whether the Church supports your doctrine.

You’ve take the Bible out of context. The Bible was written to the Church, for the Church, by members of the Church. The Bible clearly indicates that the Church is to be our guide, and yet you’ve ignored those passages and said that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be your guide. What about the apostles, the prophets, the pastors, teachers, and evangelists mentioned in Ephesians 4? These people are given far stronger support than the Scriptures that Timothy has been reading since childhood (i.e., the Old Testament) is given in 2 Timothy 3. In fact, Ephesians 4 says of the members of the Church everything and more that 2 Timothy 3 says about Scripture. In fact, let me quote the full passage:
And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
Paul, when writing to Timothy, who was himself a pastor (a bishop, with the power to appoint other bishops, 1 Timothy 4), stated that Scripture makes a man “equipped for every good work,” note the connection: in Ephesians, Paul says that God gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers “to equip the saints for the work of ministry.” It is those people who are to use the Scriptures to equip the saints.

When Peter says in his second letter, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures,” he’s warning that there will be some people who will twist the Scriptures. And Paul addresses that as well in Ephesians 4: he says that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers exist to “build up the body of Christ…so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.” Our guard against misinterpretation of Scripture and against false doctrine is not to look at the Scriptures ourselves. We’re told in Proverbs, “Lean not on thine own understanding.” Our guard against misinterpretation and twisting of Scripture is to look to the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers that God gave us so that they can use the Scriptures (as Paul advised Timothy, a pastor and evangelist, to do) to teach us.

And so you see the fundamental problem is not that we Catholics “don’t regard the Bible as the absolute truth.” On the contrary, we’re the only ones who give it its fullest respect! An oft-quoted but rarely understood passage in Hebrews states that “the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword.” Non-Catholics love to focus on the first part, but they often fail to understand the true import of the second part: the Word of God is like a two-edged sword, a sword that if used in any way improperly can very easily cut the one who wields it. We Catholics love the Bible! We read more of it every mass than many Protestant churches read in a week, or even a month! But we recognize it for the sharp, two-edged sword it is, and will not lean only on our own understanding in order to interpret it; for that, we rely on the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth (in case you haven’t found it before now, that’s 1 Timothy 3:15).

To Be Continued…
 
You also have to follow tradition, and this screws up everything.
Screws up everything? Tradition is a good thing. “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Tradition is “that which is handed on,” or “that which is received.” It is Tradition that holds up the books of the New Testament and says, “These are the words of God.” It is Tradition that holds up Jesus Christ and proclaims, “This Man is one in substance with the Father.”
For as long as a pope can say something is absolute truth, you have to accept that, since he is the “vicar of God”… Wich i most certainly dont believe.
But you believe it about Peter, I’m sure. Otherwise what was the point of Acts 15? If it was true about Peter, and it was necessary for the Church to have Peter and the other Apostles, what makes you think that once they died it ceased to be necessary? What makes you think that after the Apostles died, we must no longer “Obey your leaders and submit to them”? Who was keeping watch over our souls after the Apostles died?
The church puts fallable men in charge of what is supposed to be God’s true church,
Just like God put fallible men in charge of the composition of His Bible! Just like God put fallible men in charge of the canonization of the Bible! God works through fallible men.
and let them govern it
That’s what the power to bind and loose is: the power to govern.
as their own little playground.
No, as the household of God. Please, spare me the rhetoric 🙂
And also let them, and accept that they change even God’s ten commandments.
The fourth commandment is to keep the Sabbath day holy, and the Catholic Church still enforces that commandment. Christ, by His glorious resurrection, sanctified Sunday beyond measure, and so the Church, through its power to bind and to loose, a power ratified in heaven and using authority granted by Christ, chose to celebrate the Sabbath not on a day when Christ was buried, but on the day when He glorious arose from His death unto our salvation.
I am baffled.
That’s what happens when you read the Bible without the pillar and foundation of the truth to support it.

Jeremy
 
That’s what happens when you read the Bible without the pillar and foundation of the truth to support it.
so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.-- 1 Timothy 3:15 (New living Translation)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.– 1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)

So what is the pillar and foundtion (ground) of Truth???
:whistle:{Jeopardy Song}:whistle:
 
And…

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation
-2Peter: 1:20
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top