Answer this question

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephback
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benhur said:
Hi V,

I just had to re look the definition of consensus, and it fits my point. Consensus is not all, or 100% , but is *most *, or a general agreement.
Click to expand...
Sure, sure.

The issue that arises is about the marginal material these books contain. Maccabees leads to all sorts of “wild doctrines” like praying for the dead! :eek:

Maccabees is also difficult to classify. They’re certainly not NT, as they weren’t written by Apostles. But they also don’t meet most of the definitions for “OT” as well. Plenty of Jews out there take issue with the texts…

So in keeping with your definition of “consensus”, as 70% or so of the Christians on this planet are Catholic or Orthodox, it seems that the consensus in Christianity is that we should pray for the dead.

$0.02
 
Vonsalza said:
Sure, sure.

The issue that arises is about the marginal material these books contain. Maccabees leads to all sorts of “wild doctrines” like praying for the dead! :eek:

Maccabees is also difficult to classify. They’re certainly not NT, as they weren’t written by Apostles. But they also don’t meet most of the definitions for “OT” as well. Plenty of Jews out there take issue with the texts…

So in keeping with your definition of “consensus”, as 70% or so of the Christians on this planet are Catholic or Orthodox, it seems that the consensus in Christianity is that we should pray for the dead.

$0.02
Click to expand...
Hi V,

One could say majority is consensus, but I would say it can also be that we are both “christian” and still hold to either Mac is in or it is out.

Blessings
 
benhur said:
Hi V,

One could say majority is consensus, but I would say it can also be that we are both “christian” and still hold to either Mac is in or it is out.

Blessings
Click to expand...
And how is this not professing two different truths Ben? :confused:

Peace!!!
 
josephback said:
If Luther appealed to “scripture and plain reason” over against the authority of “popes and councils,” but it was in fact early Church councils which defined the Scripture; how can I know that the scripture I use to argue against Catholic Church “traditions” are in fact the authoritative, true, and complete scriptures?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the big predicate that is being left out in your chain of logic is that “Pope Leo X proclaimed the same gospel as the early church.”

I would tend to think that indeed Pope Leo X proclaimed much of the same gospel, but that in certain areas, he deviated from historical church teaching.

Luther was proposing to correct the erroneous teaching by reasonably examining other authorities - namely God-given Scripture.
 
benjohnson said:
In my opinion, the big predicate that is being left out in your chain of logic is that “Pope Leo X proclaimed the same gospel as the early church.”

I would tend to think that indeed Pope Leo X proclaimed much of the same gospel, but that in certain areas, he deviated from historical church teaching.

Luther was proposing to correct the erroneous teaching by reasonably examining other authorities - namely God-given Scripture.
Click to expand...
So…where did Pope Leo X deviate from historical church teaching?

But you are leaving something out…with Luther being the the judge and jury of what is correct and what is erroneous…and what is historical church teaching…🤷
 
benjohnson said:
Selling indulgences was a novelty he defended.
Click to expand...
on one hand only one person (the pope) has the keys, to bind or loose, yet by convenience some might say it is really the civil authorities that “do it”, or even a council.

Regardless, collectively, they all defended and countered every theses of Luther, many regarding indulgences. The “binding” was defended as infallible.
 
benhur said:
Wouldn’t that be peachy. Then for sure we could know who is really of the truth (as St. Paul said tongue in cheek)…whether one have 66 or 73 books in their bible.
Click to expand...
Im going to stick with the belief that He, Jesus and the spirit of truth, didn’t leave us orphans.😉

Peace!!!
 
benjohnson said:
Selling indulgences was a novelty he defended.
Click to expand...
Half-true. Alms as penance is possibly as early as 3rd century. Deeds and alms as outright-indulgence possibly as early as 10th or 11th. Luther wouldn’t cry-foul for another 500 years or so.

I’m glad Trent addressed the issue, though. 👍
 
benhur said:
on one hand only one person (the pope) has the keys, to bind or loose, yet by convenience some might say it is really the civil authorities that “do it”, or even a council.

Regardless, collectively, they all defended and countered every theses of Luther, many regarding indulgences. The “binding” was defended as infallible.
Click to expand...
From ‘The Roots of the Reformation’ by Karl Adam

Frederick the Wise, the famous protector of Luther, had built up his treasury of relics in the Castle Church at Wittenburg to 18,885 fragments. Anyone who believed in and venerated them could gain indulgences amounting to two million years.
 
benjohnson said:
Selling indulgences was a novelty he defended.
Click to expand...
When PBS holds a telethon, and you pledge a certain amount, and they give you a mug for a minimum pledge, are you buying the mug?
benjohnson said:
About midway down - easier to search for “indulgence”
Click to expand...
Could you paste the relevant part where he defends the sale of indulgences? Having read Exsurge Domine several times, I have yet to see Leo defending the sale of indulgences.
Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.
Click to expand...
One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."
Click to expand...
 
Duane1966 said:
When PBS holds a telethon, and you pledge a certain amount, and they give you a mug for a minimum pledge, are you buying the mug?
Click to expand...
Yes - you wouldn’t get the mug without the transaction.

It’s not just me that thinks that - you have to deduct the value of the mug from your deduction for IRS purposes and the charity should have given you an itemized receipt to indicate the value.
Could you paste the relevant part where he defends the sale of indulgences?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, Exurge Domine can’t be understood without knowing what it was countering. You have to go to the top of the list and see in the list that Pope Leo X was saying the items in the list are in error.

If you really need a jaw dropper - Pope Leo X said that this was an error.
  1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Thankfully we don’t burn heretics anymore.
 
benjohnson said:
Yes - you wouldn’t get the mug without the transaction.

It’s not just me that thinks that - you have to deduct the value of the mug from your deduction for IRS purposes and the charity should have given you an itemized receipt to indicate the value.
Click to expand...
Actually no. If you are buying the mug, then there MUST be sales tax. This does not happen, so the IRS does not consider that you bought the mug. And the IRS feels the same when you tithe to your Church.
benjohnson said:
In my opinion, Exurge Domine can’t be understood without knowing what it was countering. You have to go to the top of the list and see in the list that Pope Leo X was saying the items in the list are in error.
Click to expand...
I know the errors Leo was countering. I understand Exsurge Domine. By the way, contrary to what other ill-informed posters have stated, Leo did not consider all 95 theses in error.
benjohnson said:
If you really need a jaw dropper - Pope Leo X said that this was an error.
  1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Thankfully we don’t burn heretics anymore.
Click to expand...
Are you sure the Spirit would be against the burning of heretics?

The Spirit had no problem with drowning people in the flood.

The Spirit had no problem with burning the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Furthermore, Luther’s logic on this one makes no sense. Heresy was considered treason against the state. It was a capital crime. How were other capital crimes dealt with? In many cases, burning. Luther himself considered heresy a capital crime, as he sanctioned in Wittenberg the executions of Anabaptists.

If heresy was considered a capital crime, and it was why should the penalty, and the form carrying out the penalty, be different for heresy than other capital crimes?
 
Duane1966 said:
If you are buying the mug, then there MUST be sales tax. This does not happen, so the IRS does not consider that you bought the mug. And the IRS feels the same when you tithe to your Church.
Click to expand...
MUST?

Hopefully you know that sales tax is levied by the sate. IRS is federal. We have no general federal sales tax and there are several states with no sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Delaware, and Oregon)

Here’s some education from the IRA about receiving the mug based on a donation

irs.gov/uac/nine-tips-for-charitable-taxpayers

Read #4 very carefully:

When you receive something in return If your contribution entitles you to receive merchandise, goods, or services in return – such as admission to a charity banquet or sporting event – you can deduct only the amount that exceeds the fair market value of the benefit received.

So yes… you paid for the mug in your example. You don’t get to deduct the value of it from your taxes.
The Spirit had no problem with drowning people in the flood.
Click to expand...
The Spirit had no problem with burning the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Click to expand...
The Holy Sprit is justice and mercy.

That’s far different than Pope Leo X claiming that he has the will of the Holy Spirit (or at least the Holy Spirit’s permission) to burn heretics himself.
 
benjohnson said:
MUST?

Hopefully you know that sales tax is levied by the sate. IRS is federal. We have no general federal sales tax and there are several states with no sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Delaware, and Oregon)

Here’s some education from the IRA about receiving the mug based on a donation

irs.gov/uac/nine-tips-for-charitable-taxpayers

Read #4 very carefully:

When you receive something in return If your contribution entitles you to receive merchandise, goods, or services in return – such as admission to a charity banquet or sporting event – you can deduct only the amount that exceeds the fair market value of the benefit received.

So yes… you paid for the mug in your example. You don’t get to deduct the value of it from your taxes.
Click to expand...
I understand sales taxes are levied by the state. Since it was a contribution, and not an actual sale, no sales tax is levied on the mug. Not one state considers that you bought the mug.
benjohnson said:
The Holy Sprit is justice and mercy.
Click to expand...
Where was the mercy to children that burned in Sodom and Gomorrah? If it was not against the will of the Spirit to burn them, why would it be against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics?

Ben, why did Martin Luther think that burning of heretics was wrong, but not the burning of witches, or coin forgers…? He clearly felt heresy deserved the death penalty, as he sanctioned the drowning of heretics in Saxony. Why should heresy, which was considered treason, and punishable by death, receive a different form of execution than what was the norm for execution of other capital crimes.
benjohnson said:
That’s far different than Pope Leo X claiming that he has the will of the Holy Spirit (or at least the Holy Spirit’s permission) to burn heretics himself.
Click to expand...
Can you show me where Leo X said this? I have yet to see where he stated that he could burn heretics himself. I look forward to you posting a link where he states, what you have attributed to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top