D
- Status
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello david ruiz,
(Responding to post #341)
Maybe you can tell us why it is, specifically that you have a problem with this belief and we can start there.
(Responding to post #341)
Maybe you can tell us why it is, specifically that you have a problem with this belief and we can start there.
- Are your aware of anything traditionally, historically or biblically that contradicts this belief?
- If tomorrow, all of the major Protestant denominations came out and said that they support this belief, would that change your mind.
- Do you have any evidence that this ether didn’t happen or could not have happened?
- Do you believe in all of the other miracles described in the Bible and if so, where is your evidence that they actually occurred.
P
PAboy57
Guest
beehumble is opening both barrels on this crowd and saying what many good Catholics are thinking all the time. We have given those of other faiths everything we know, Tradition and Scripture as well as our holy people inspired by the Holy Spirit and YOU STILL DO NOT BELIEVE?
This is most frustrating as we trying to let you in on the Biggest Secret ever discovered via truth from the Holy Spirit. It is unthinkable that Jesus wouldn’t give His mother Queenship of His Church – simple logic considering the significant role Mary played, whether written or not, should open your eyes. Do you want to explain to Jesus why you shunned His mother??? She was hand-picked by the Father to be the Mother of the Son of God!!! It doesn’t get any better than that.
It makes me sick to my stomach that you can’t see the beauty and dominant role that the Blessed Mother will play in the salvation of mankind. You are simply missing out on an opportunity for Our Lady to take your human prayers (just like our’s) and make them something special to present to her Son. Anything Blessed Mary asks for she will get simply because of her position. Also believe that if you are not sincere you don’t have a chance with her as she would not place her Son in such a position.
Enough said!!! You refuse to believe so cut your own deal but never say you weren’t provided an opportunity to learn of the most powerful salvation opportunity second to God. While Mary provides graces directly from God – you turn up your nose to the Queen of Heaven and Earth.
It will be a sad day when you stand before Jesus, King of Kings, and try to explain why you didn’t have respect for the most beloved woman ever created and the Queen of Heaven and Earth. I don’t want to be standing anywhere near you during that time. And she won’t be so humble in end times as she is a warrior right now defeating satan everyday.
May the Holy Spirt the Spouse of Mary, and Jesus Son of the Father and Mary, and the Father Almighty open your hearts and minds.
V
vulcano37214
Guest
So by using that argument, if the Bible does not say it then it becomes Biblical Doctrine. Maybe Elizabeth was assumed into Heaven, the Bible does not say it so therefore we could start a new movement, ( the assumption of Elizabeth). If mary was sinless, then i think the Holy Spirit would have revealed that in Scripture.
Hebrews 7:9-10
9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,
10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
Levi was considered to have paid tithes yet he was in the loins of Abraham. So it is with our Sin Nature, We are sinners because we were in the loins of Adam, We were made sinners because of Adam. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
Romans 5:9
9For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
That is why we are to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He was the propitiation for our sins. We are to call on everyone everywhere to Repent and believe the Gospel of Christ.
In Christ
Sam
V
vulcano37214
Guest
F
Fisher
Guest
In the Eastern Church, the dormition (“falling asleep”) of Mary began to be commemorated in the 6th century. The observance gradually spread to the West, where it became known as the feast of the Assumption. By the 13th century most Catholic theologians accepted the belief of the Assumption. However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Catholic faith: “The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950). Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture.1 In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.
Catholic writes refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. These efforts fall short of biblical proof. Consider some examples:
Genesis 3:15 [And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel] It is argued that Mary, “most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death.” We notice, however, that it is the seed, Jesus, rather that the woman, who bruised the serpent’s head. His resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah’s triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ’s victory according to God’s plan of salvation at the “resurrection of life.” That is still a future event.
Luke 1:28 [And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women]. Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated “full of grace” (Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!
Revelation 12:1 [And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars]. A Catholic author writes: “Mary’s coronation implies her preceding bodily assumption.” He wrongly assumes that this “woman” is Mary and ignores the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, “being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered” (Revelation 12:2); whereas Catholics believe that Mary “gave birth to her Son without pain” (Pope Alexander III).
None of these and similar scriptures actually prove the bodily assumption. As Pope Pius XII commented, “Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.” Yet he still based his argument on these writings, thereby conceding that there is no genuine biblical proof of the Assumption.
Not taught by the Church Fathers
The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:
“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.”2
St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.3
cont
F
Fisher
Guest
So, how did this teaching originate, given that it is absent in the Sacred Scriptures and in the tradition of the early Church? The belief of the assumption is based on apocryphal and spurious writings.
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine.4 However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century.5 It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century.
The Roman Church solemnly warns anyone who “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus). How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures? Some have indeed fallen from the catholic faith. The apostates are those who have invented this novel doctrine. The faithful are those who, together with the early Christians, have remained steadfast in upholding the faith of the New Testament.
In theory, the Roman Church teaches that:
In practice, Rome teaches doctrines that are not drawn from the deposit of faith. We have seen that the Assumption is neither found in Scripture nor in the early church tradition. Certainly, if this doctrine were transmitted by the apostles to the bishops of the early church, we would expect to find at least some references to it in the voluminous writings of the Fathers. But they are conspicuously silent about this subject.
If you are a Catholic, ask yourself whether your implicit trust in the Roman magisterium is warranted. The magisterium claims to explain the Word of God, but at least in this case, it has gone far beyond it’s stated role. It is inventing novel doctrines beyond the Word of God. Be careful! You may feel convinced that your faith is built on a solid rock, when in fact, you are standing on sinking sand.
Catholic theology has exalted Mary to the heavens, and it is therefore natural for Catholics to look to her for their spiritual needs. “O most sweet Lady and our Mother, thou hast already left the earth and reached thy kingdom, where, as Queen, thou art enthroned … From the high throne, then, to which thou art exalted, turn, O Mary, thy compassionate eyes upon us, and pity us.” (Of the Assumption of Mary, St. Alphonsus de Liguori).
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine.4 However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century.5 It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century.
The Roman Church solemnly warns anyone who “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus). How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures? Some have indeed fallen from the catholic faith. The apostates are those who have invented this novel doctrine. The faithful are those who, together with the early Christians, have remained steadfast in upholding the faith of the New Testament.
In theory, the Roman Church teaches that:
- The sacred deposit of the faith (the Word of God) is contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
- The Magisterium gives an authentic interpretation to the Word of God but does not add to its contents.
In practice, Rome teaches doctrines that are not drawn from the deposit of faith. We have seen that the Assumption is neither found in Scripture nor in the early church tradition. Certainly, if this doctrine were transmitted by the apostles to the bishops of the early church, we would expect to find at least some references to it in the voluminous writings of the Fathers. But they are conspicuously silent about this subject.
If you are a Catholic, ask yourself whether your implicit trust in the Roman magisterium is warranted. The magisterium claims to explain the Word of God, but at least in this case, it has gone far beyond it’s stated role. It is inventing novel doctrines beyond the Word of God. Be careful! You may feel convinced that your faith is built on a solid rock, when in fact, you are standing on sinking sand.
Catholic theology has exalted Mary to the heavens, and it is therefore natural for Catholics to look to her for their spiritual needs. “O most sweet Lady and our Mother, thou hast already left the earth and reached thy kingdom, where, as Queen, thou art enthroned … From the high throne, then, to which thou art exalted, turn, O Mary, thy compassionate eyes upon us, and pity us.” (Of the Assumption of Mary, St. Alphonsus de Liguori).
F
Fisher
Guest
The "WOMAN " mentioned in this verse is Israel. Israel is often called a woman in the Scriptures. You will also notice that she has on her head a crown of twelve stars. Probably these stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel, so the woman is Israel.
Verse 2:
God promised Israel a Child to become the Messiah. All through the years of Jewish history the Jews looked for the coming of that Child. She was in travail looking for the birth of the promised Child. In Isaiah 9:6 the prophet says, "Unto us Israel} a child is born… "
Verse 3:
As soon as the promise of the Child was given there appeared a dragon to try to destroy the Child. The dragon is Satan. Notice he is powerful and has crowns and horns upon his head. Horns in the Scriptures always symbolize kingdoms. So Satan has his kingdoms in this world.
Verse 4:
Notice that the dragon is standing to try to destroy the Child as soon as the Child is born. You will remember how Herod was used of the Devil to try to destroy Jesus by killing all of the male infants. God marvelously protected the Child Jesus by sending Joseph into Egypt to stay until Herod’s death.
Verse 5:
The first words of this verse almost fit exactly the words spoken in the Gospels concerning the birth of Jesus. Israel gave us our Saviour. We should eternally be grateful to the Jews for the One they have given to us.
The second truth in this verse is the fact that Jesus will rule the nations with a rod of iron. This prophesies the one thousand years that Jesus will rule the earth with the saints.
Another statement, "AND HER CHILD WAS CAUGHT UP UNTO GOD, AND TO HIS THRONE, " deal with the resurrection and ascension of Jesus into Heaven.
Verse 6:
Notice that when the Child was taken into Heaven the woman fled. The Jews have been scattered ever since Jesus went back into Heaven to be with the Father.
Notice also in this verse the mention of the 1,260 days again which divides the seven years of tribulation. My, it is wonderful how God knows what He is talking about, isn’t it?
Verse 7:
This war takes place at the end of the first three and one half years of the tribulation period. The Devil is thrown out of Heaven with his angels. The reason that the Devil has access to Heaven now is found in verse 10-he is accusing the saints.
The word "FOUGHT " means “declared war.”
Verse 8:
The word "PREVAILED NOT " mean "conquered not. " Satan will lose this war, will be conquered, and will not accuse us any more.
Verse 9:
The word "CAST " means "throw. " He is literally thrown out of Heaven.
He is thrown into earth.
B
beehumble
Guest
Fisher says: "The “WOMAN " mentioned in this verse is Israel. Israel is often called a woman in the Scriptures. You will also notice that she has on her head a crown of twelve stars. Probably these stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel, so the woman is Israel.”
No it is not necessarily…because it says in Rev 12:17:
*Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. *
The people of Israel do not bear witness to Jesus, in fact in the early goings they tried to kill all those who did bear witness to Him via people like Saul (now Paul).
In determining the theme and personages etc, ALL the verses must fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. Since verse 17 does not fit if the woman is Israel, that answer is not it. Obviously the only one who fits ALL the verses is Mary. Jesus identifies the Woman in the Gospel of John, when He refers to Mary His mother as “Woman”. So in at least one sense of Scripture the Woman is Blessed Mary.
I know it is an inconvenient truth for many protestants to have to admit it, because it gives too much credence to the Catholic position of the importance of Mary, but there it is right there in Revelation and in Genesis too. I suppose you could remove that verse to make your ideas fit better, like Luther did to entire books of the Catholic cannon?
Myself, I like to align my ideas with the book rather than the other way around.
God bless you.
No it is not necessarily…because it says in Rev 12:17:
*Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. *
The people of Israel do not bear witness to Jesus, in fact in the early goings they tried to kill all those who did bear witness to Him via people like Saul (now Paul).
In determining the theme and personages etc, ALL the verses must fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. Since verse 17 does not fit if the woman is Israel, that answer is not it. Obviously the only one who fits ALL the verses is Mary. Jesus identifies the Woman in the Gospel of John, when He refers to Mary His mother as “Woman”. So in at least one sense of Scripture the Woman is Blessed Mary.
I know it is an inconvenient truth for many protestants to have to admit it, because it gives too much credence to the Catholic position of the importance of Mary, but there it is right there in Revelation and in Genesis too. I suppose you could remove that verse to make your ideas fit better, like Luther did to entire books of the Catholic cannon?
Myself, I like to align my ideas with the book rather than the other way around.
God bless you.
J
joe370
Guest
Dave…
If you really think that the CC propagates many lies, then why are you here at CAF; just curious?
Let’s assume it’s not to be found in the CC for the simple fact that that is what you already assume?
Go…
So they were born again, in the CC, left the CC, and then were born again in the church founded by God?
Doctrinal truth is the difference. If one was raised, from birth, in a church that was not founded by Jesus, in the first century, and one does not know the fullness of truth found in the church founded by Jesus, because of that fact, then it’s not their fault, for example, that they don’t know that Jesus was not speaking in metaphor regarding John 6.
Circular reasoning, are you kidding me? Prove it and I will believe you? SS as the Christians final authority is circular reasoning, and almost anything could be said and is said regarding SS.
If you really think that the CC propagates many lies, then why are you here at CAF; just curious?
Because that is a foregone conclusion.
Where is the fullness of truth, regarding all that Jesus taught to be found in the world today, for if we find that place (the pillar and foundation of truth) - then we can find the answer to the question regarding the AOM?
Let’s assume it’s not to be found in the CC for the simple fact that that is what you already assume?
Go…
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Hi Jimmy B- In response to #342,yes I believe in the biblical miracles.My direct evidence is that they are in the bible itself ,with direct eyewitness testimony .Secondarily, is all the evidence for authenticity of the bible itself , where every generation can double check what is cannon and what is not , from thousands of biblical dated documents etc.(textus receptus). 3rd - have no direct evidence it could not happen -is there eyewitness testimony of it happening .I understand a false gospel came out (Peter-where she was Assumed ?) that was denounced by 5th c pope.If there is eyewitness accounts , why were they not "inspired writing " ,otherwise oral stuff could be just hearsay . Regardless , why did some early church fathers dismiss the notion -for it was floating around (I am thinking specifically of St. Jerome(5thC ?). And later Aquinas ,not to mention fighting ,in some cases to death by Holy Orders (monks) over some Mariology -not sure if was Assumption or Immaculateness. Finally ,just personally judgeing by some ,maybe even a lot of the fruits of Mariology ,I would say no.Finally ,there could be a smidgen of truth that the need for some Mariology could be carnal ,that is a bit like religions of the non-christian world that invaded Rome,who had there own female cults …Ist question- The bible does warn against fables and spiritual events happening here or there .and has scriptures saying the written word is "safe’ to bet on. Early fathers also judged things scripturally.So ,at best the Assumption could have happened ,but certainly is wrong to make it a required dogma (it is isn’t it ?),I know the Immaculate C. was required dogma -that for sure is wrong. At best I could say I am being like good Catholics were for nearly 2000 years, and say Mary’s Assumption is NOT infallible doctrine. I am being transparent as can be .that is all i have -not much .The question is left ,any eyewitness accounts ,and how long before they were written about ?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You know what Dave. Theres whats said by the elect of the Catholic Church, whats Scripture, and then what your own experience has been.
I could assure you, If anyone was hardheaded about accepting the thinking and praying the Rosary, it was I. And my mother has prayed it her entire life, and my grandmother did the same and attended mass daily. She lived directly in back of the Parish I attend and have since childhood.
But I’ll tell you, I can’t put into words how much the Rosary has affected my life with spiritual faith. Everything your reading about here, I came to this, after I started praying the Rosary. I felt so profoundly affected by it, and so many little things began changing and happening. I was seriously taken aback by it. I actually begin researching it.
I actually became a student of research with the Rosary. While I wasn’t really surprized by what I read, I was, in the sense that I could relate and felt exactly like many were explaining. I actually felt foolish to some degree and humbled and sorry that I was so hardheaded about its reality. Yet very fortunate and blessed also. And of course since it has affected me, its affected those around me. That I believe is residal affect that would happen be it negative or positive, but none the less its been positive.
Without a doubt I believe its a Blessing, and if you Pray it daily I don’t believe it could not increase your spiritual faith, and bring you much closer to God. I found myself becoming a different person more united with Christ. Little things that I didn’t view as tramatic like attending mass on the regular etc. I find I can’t accept now.
While I believe people can change for the positive anyway, I know the Rosary makes a very big diifference. I could tell you I worked with the Homeless, Mental Retardation, Substance Abuse, Dept of Corr and Parole, and all kinds of behavior. So while I wasn’t a bad person. My spiritual connection just wasn’t the same.
I just wasn’t that generally happy Christian you see and hear about. Matter of fact I aways been skeptical about them. I just wasn’t getting that, it wasn’t coming to me like that so I couldn’t really accept it or relate to it.
Yet praying the Rosary has without a doubt changed this. I feel like a tremendous weight was lifted me, the veil was removed and I could see. The darkness is gone and the lights are on. So much so that I make it a point to make sure I pray the Rosary daily now. Because I’m truly gratefull for the way I feel and whats happened.
I’ll tell you this. I would very very surprized if anyone came foward and said they had put any kind of honest effort into daily recitation, and it hasn’t changed their life. And not only this but to the point where they conclude its the Rosary and Mary/God giving the grace. I’de be surprized to hear anything contrary. I know its that powerfull. Its not what I tnink at this point. Its become what I know now.
So when I read what Saints are saying like Louis de Montfort or the apparitions. I now find that very easy to believe. I have read a few that were not approved by the Vatican that I have my doubts about.
I’ve read all about Medjugorje and I don’t feel that way about that these, I have reservations. But I also wouldn’t be surpized if they turn out real. I haven’t been their either. Though the majority of the bigger apparitions I do get a distinct feeling about.
God Bless, GT
I could assure you, If anyone was hardheaded about accepting the thinking and praying the Rosary, it was I. And my mother has prayed it her entire life, and my grandmother did the same and attended mass daily. She lived directly in back of the Parish I attend and have since childhood.
But I’ll tell you, I can’t put into words how much the Rosary has affected my life with spiritual faith. Everything your reading about here, I came to this, after I started praying the Rosary. I felt so profoundly affected by it, and so many little things began changing and happening. I was seriously taken aback by it. I actually begin researching it.
I actually became a student of research with the Rosary. While I wasn’t really surprized by what I read, I was, in the sense that I could relate and felt exactly like many were explaining. I actually felt foolish to some degree and humbled and sorry that I was so hardheaded about its reality. Yet very fortunate and blessed also. And of course since it has affected me, its affected those around me. That I believe is residal affect that would happen be it negative or positive, but none the less its been positive.
Without a doubt I believe its a Blessing, and if you Pray it daily I don’t believe it could not increase your spiritual faith, and bring you much closer to God. I found myself becoming a different person more united with Christ. Little things that I didn’t view as tramatic like attending mass on the regular etc. I find I can’t accept now.
While I believe people can change for the positive anyway, I know the Rosary makes a very big diifference. I could tell you I worked with the Homeless, Mental Retardation, Substance Abuse, Dept of Corr and Parole, and all kinds of behavior. So while I wasn’t a bad person. My spiritual connection just wasn’t the same.
I just wasn’t that generally happy Christian you see and hear about. Matter of fact I aways been skeptical about them. I just wasn’t getting that, it wasn’t coming to me like that so I couldn’t really accept it or relate to it.
Yet praying the Rosary has without a doubt changed this. I feel like a tremendous weight was lifted me, the veil was removed and I could see. The darkness is gone and the lights are on. So much so that I make it a point to make sure I pray the Rosary daily now. Because I’m truly gratefull for the way I feel and whats happened.
I’ll tell you this. I would very very surprized if anyone came foward and said they had put any kind of honest effort into daily recitation, and it hasn’t changed their life. And not only this but to the point where they conclude its the Rosary and Mary/God giving the grace. I’de be surprized to hear anything contrary. I know its that powerfull. Its not what I tnink at this point. Its become what I know now.
So when I read what Saints are saying like Louis de Montfort or the apparitions. I now find that very easy to believe. I have read a few that were not approved by the Vatican that I have my doubts about.
I’ve read all about Medjugorje and I don’t feel that way about that these, I have reservations. But I also wouldn’t be surpized if they turn out real. I haven’t been their either. Though the majority of the bigger apparitions I do get a distinct feeling about.
God Bless, GT
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
[/QUOTE]Dave…
So they were born again, in the CC, left the CC, and then were born again in the church founded by God?
end ?
Circular reasoning, are you kidding me? Prove it and I will believe you? SS as the Christians final authority is circular reasoning, and almost anything could be said and is said regarding SS.
If you really think that the CC propagates many lies, then why are you here at CAF; jus curious?
Because that is a foregone conclusion.
Where is the fullness of truth, regarding all that Jesus taught to be found in the world today, for if we find that place (the pillar and foundation of truth) - then we can find the answer to the question regarding the AOM?
Let’s assume it’s not to be found in the CC for the simple fact that that is what you already assume?
Go…
D
david_ruiz
Guest
J
joe370
Guest
Dave I asked you:
Where is the fullness of truth, regarding all that Jesus taught to be found in the world today, for if we find that place (the pillar and foundation of truth) - then we can find the answer to the question regarding the AOM?
And you said:
Yes,but it does not look so good for that pillar when it takes 2000 years to show it(AOM) .Would it not be better to stick with Her truths that were evident form the beginning ,and turned the world upside down.
Instead of answering my question with a question, perhaps you could answer my question:
Again, where is the fullness of truth, regarding all that Jesus taught, to be found in the world today, for if we find that place (the pillar and foundation of truth) - then we can find the answer to the question regarding the AOM?
Dave, in your opinion does a Christian even need to go to church, considering the fact that the Christians sole rule of faith and final authority, from a SS perspective, is the holy bible?
Where is the fullness of truth, regarding all that Jesus taught to be found in the world today, for if we find that place (the pillar and foundation of truth) - then we can find the answer to the question regarding the AOM?
And you said:
Yes,but it does not look so good for that pillar when it takes 2000 years to show it(AOM) .Would it not be better to stick with Her truths that were evident form the beginning ,and turned the world upside down.
Instead of answering my question with a question, perhaps you could answer my question:
Again, where is the fullness of truth, regarding all that Jesus taught, to be found in the world today, for if we find that place (the pillar and foundation of truth) - then we can find the answer to the question regarding the AOM?
Dave, in your opinion does a Christian even need to go to church, considering the fact that the Christians sole rule of faith and final authority, from a SS perspective, is the holy bible?
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Dave…
There actually are several places in the New Testament where the Aramaic IS preserved and used to identify Simon as Rock. Not to mention the fact that if the NT writers wanted to call Simon a little stone they would have used the word lithos. Why is the following word (cephas) - which means massive rock, used instead of evna which means little stone? As a matter of fact, why isn’t the word petros used in the following passages, in either the Greek NT or the English NT?
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas, which, when translated, is Peter.”
1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
Of course they differentiated petra from petros. When the translation of the original Aramaic was made into Greek the word petra which denoted Peter was simply changed by the translator to petros because petra has a feminine ending and petros has the masculine ending. It would not be fitting to call Simon by a girl’s name - right? Calling Simon Petra would be like calling me Josephine.
There actually are several places in the New Testament where the Aramaic IS preserved and used to identify Simon as Rock. Not to mention the fact that if the NT writers wanted to call Simon a little stone they would have used the word lithos. Why is the following word (cephas) - which means massive rock, used instead of evna which means little stone? As a matter of fact, why isn’t the word petros used in the following passages, in either the Greek NT or the English NT?John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas, which, when translated, is Peter.”
Code:
1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas “; still another, “I follow Christ.”
1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
J
joe370
Guest
Dave…
I do find what he said about the CC rather odd. ML, speaking concerning the authority that Bishops would have among the reformers, if any of them should adopt reformed principles:
“We would acknowledge them as our fathers, and willingly obey their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.”
*CCC - Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.
*
And 500 years later, we see hundreds and hundreds of isolated autonomous PC’s, all of which claim to be getting back to what Jesus founded. Are you suggesting that all one needs to do is pick one of these churches, and one will be in touch with what Jesus founded?
There is a big difference between ML and myself, and where our paths led us. ML rejected the authority of the CC, (which is OK with me if you can prove that the CC is not the church founded by God; I couldn’t ) - the ministerial priesthood, free will, 4 books of the NT, seeing them as as non-canonical, (yet his successors kept them in there) - 7 of the OT books, and the teaching that faith without works is dead, just to name a few.
I do find what he said about the CC rather odd. ML, speaking concerning the authority that Bishops would have among the reformers, if any of them should adopt reformed principles:
“We would acknowledge them as our fathers, and willingly obey their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.”
Regarding the following, if you don’t believe that Christ entrusted to the CC, the fullness of grace and truth, then to whom has Christ entrusted fullness of grace and truth?
*CCC - Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.
*
OK, but all I am saying is that these churches were not founded by God on Pentecost - right or wrong? I’m not trying to get you to come to the CC; if you are happy where you are then I am very happy for you; I’m just trying to be historically honest.
So, Jesus’ church need not start on Pentecost?
I already admitted that there were/are good and bad people in the CC. Please, leave the CC out of it for the moment. So your point is: we don’t need to belong to that one church that goes all the way back to Christ, who founded that one church, His church, on Pentecost, even though the spirit of truth was promised to guide only that church into all truth, forever?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
- Status