M
- Status
E
Ehud
Guest
In response to Rick,
As I said a pro-choice, nod-to-the-evolutionist cop out! No Ex-Nihilio creation by an Omnipotent Being, NO taking Eve from a Rib (and the accompanying theological repercussions for the Church which is to be seen as the Bride of Christ), none of this and much less if we ascribe any value to “the present state of human sciences” which, by nature is a changing vat of cyclical contradictions hopelessly inadequate to explain even the unturning shadow of a Changeless God.
Elsewhere in this forum much has been made of the continuity of Catholic belief in the light of Apostolic tradition. How then did the Apostles view Creation (as an example)? Did they not continue with the Jewish beliefs, handed down by God to men and unchallenged by His Son in the human flesh?
Of course, being high-degreed whatnots we know better because no-one wants to stand out in a crowd professing truths that the modern man would scoff at or crucify us for, just as Noah’s talk of rain was codswallop in his day.
If you make a serious study of Genesis, paying attention to the original language, you will find that it is written entirely as a didactic account. (recommended starting point could be the concise “the Great Brain Robbery” - can’t put a hand on my copy so you might find the author/publisher details on Amazon etc.) It is not poetry, symbolism, fairy tale-ism but a black and white account, accepted as such by it’s original audience, the Jews.
Again, time is a theif and does his darkest work by nioght and morning and he steals the opportunity I would relish to further discuss these issues with you…
Best Wishes.
As I said a pro-choice, nod-to-the-evolutionist cop out! No Ex-Nihilio creation by an Omnipotent Being, NO taking Eve from a Rib (and the accompanying theological repercussions for the Church which is to be seen as the Bride of Christ), none of this and much less if we ascribe any value to “the present state of human sciences” which, by nature is a changing vat of cyclical contradictions hopelessly inadequate to explain even the unturning shadow of a Changeless God.
Elsewhere in this forum much has been made of the continuity of Catholic belief in the light of Apostolic tradition. How then did the Apostles view Creation (as an example)? Did they not continue with the Jewish beliefs, handed down by God to men and unchallenged by His Son in the human flesh?
Of course, being high-degreed whatnots we know better because no-one wants to stand out in a crowd professing truths that the modern man would scoff at or crucify us for, just as Noah’s talk of rain was codswallop in his day.
If you make a serious study of Genesis, paying attention to the original language, you will find that it is written entirely as a didactic account. (recommended starting point could be the concise “the Great Brain Robbery” - can’t put a hand on my copy so you might find the author/publisher details on Amazon etc.) It is not poetry, symbolism, fairy tale-ism but a black and white account, accepted as such by it’s original audience, the Jews.
Again, time is a theif and does his darkest work by nioght and morning and he steals the opportunity I would relish to further discuss these issues with you…
Best Wishes.
E
Ehud
Guest
Post Script: If Pope Pius XII could not accept that God was Powerful enough to do exactly what he claimed, i.e. make Man from the dust of the earth, especially in light of this act being referred to on copious occasions throughout both the Old AND New Testaments, perhaps he had no right in reaching into the higher realms of supposition on the more elusive subject of the soul’s creation.
Why would an unrepentant man be encouraged to believe in God when Chrisitians accept some mysterious unfathomable creation of the soul but drag their collective heels over an expressed truth of Holy Writ? Are people embarrassed of the Faith?? Are modern men afraid to take up a cross to be blessed when men revile them?
I hope not!
Why would an unrepentant man be encouraged to believe in God when Chrisitians accept some mysterious unfathomable creation of the soul but drag their collective heels over an expressed truth of Holy Writ? Are people embarrassed of the Faith?? Are modern men afraid to take up a cross to be blessed when men revile them?
I hope not!
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Um…what?
For the record, I do believe in a great deluge as a real event and not merely a cleverly written moral lesson used to lead people to repentence only.
In other words, it’s both.
S
Sixtus
Guest
When you ask the question ‘which bible is right Catholic or Protestant’. You need to be more spefic. Within Catholicism and Authodoxy which accounts for 90% of all Christendom, there is ONE Bible. Within Protestantism there was at the last count 78,000 different interpretations of Sacred Scripture.
As a Catholic Apologist, I often get asked by Protestants about the differences, but to be frank, there ar so many, more and more are coming into existence every week, that it is impossible for any Catholic Apologist to keep up with them all!
As a Catholic Apologist, I often get asked by Protestants about the differences, but to be frank, there ar so many, more and more are coming into existence every week, that it is impossible for any Catholic Apologist to keep up with them all!
A
awantz
Guest
I don’t see much difference between the catholic and protestant bibles except that the protestant bible is missing 7 books in the old testament.
S
Sixtus
Guest
One final note, the Protestant Bible’s are actually 7-books short of the Catholic and original Bible. .
There is in fact only one Bible in its entirety. That doesn’t count for the JH version they have produced, which is actually taken from the original Bible. So there is still only one Bible and that is that produced by the CC whose Scriptures they are.
There is in fact only one Bible in its entirety. That doesn’t count for the JH version they have produced, which is actually taken from the original Bible. So there is still only one Bible and that is that produced by the CC whose Scriptures they are.
S
Sixtus
Guest
A non=believing scientist friend of mine states The ‘Big Bang’ is a creationist theory. Evolutionists reject it, preferring the ‘Steady State’ theory.
Modern research has found the temperature of intergallactic space is 2.5 degrees warmer than absolute zero. There is no heat escaping from galaxies to account for this heat. So it should be absolute zero. The fact that it isn’t can only be explained as the presence of residual heat from the Big Bang. The universe has been cooling since its creation in the Big Bang.
The first product from the Big Bang was photons. The temperature so too high for there to be the existence of matter. All matter as we know it was light. It was an opaque universe ablaze with light. The book of Genises says God said ‘let there be light and there was light…’! Where is the problem with science being at odds with the Bible? It is in fact in accord with the cutting edge of information coming from the international space station.
Modern research has found the temperature of intergallactic space is 2.5 degrees warmer than absolute zero. There is no heat escaping from galaxies to account for this heat. So it should be absolute zero. The fact that it isn’t can only be explained as the presence of residual heat from the Big Bang. The universe has been cooling since its creation in the Big Bang.
The first product from the Big Bang was photons. The temperature so too high for there to be the existence of matter. All matter as we know it was light. It was an opaque universe ablaze with light. The book of Genises says God said ‘let there be light and there was light…’! Where is the problem with science being at odds with the Bible? It is in fact in accord with the cutting edge of information coming from the international space station.
E
Ehud
Guest
So has Science come of age in your view? And was it worth waiting for? Did we need it’s assent? Are we sure they have it right who once rejected Copernicus, who once taught a flat earth and who, in many, if not most cases, offer empirical arguments against God?
You clearly assert that God used a Big Bang to create the world. The God in the Scriptures didn’t. Perhaps your god did? Or have you, as many in the Church claim unchallenged, special charisms and personal revelations about this period in time?
Glad to hear that Ex-Nihilo, believes what God clearly reveals in the Scriptures. Sixtus seems very keen to support the authenticity of the Bible the Church has but quite reluctant to believe it’s actual content…
Consider this also: today’s evolutionists may reject a Big Bang, and clearly not ALL of them do, but who gave the world such a hare-brained and fantastical notion in the first place?? Evolutionists! If God be God follow Him, for a house built on the changing sands must invariably blow about with every wind of doctrine before crumbling.
You clearly assert that God used a Big Bang to create the world. The God in the Scriptures didn’t. Perhaps your god did? Or have you, as many in the Church claim unchallenged, special charisms and personal revelations about this period in time?
Glad to hear that Ex-Nihilo, believes what God clearly reveals in the Scriptures. Sixtus seems very keen to support the authenticity of the Bible the Church has but quite reluctant to believe it’s actual content…
Consider this also: today’s evolutionists may reject a Big Bang, and clearly not ALL of them do, but who gave the world such a hare-brained and fantastical notion in the first place?? Evolutionists! If God be God follow Him, for a house built on the changing sands must invariably blow about with every wind of doctrine before crumbling.
T
Tietjen
Guest
True, but didn’t Christ found His Church with His disciples? That being said, I don’t see any other 2000+ year old Christian Church, other than the Catholic Church, that could be considered. Perhaps Christ meant that one of the following Churches would be His Church:
Orthodox founded in 1054
Lutheran found in 1517
Anabaptist found in 1521
Anglican founded in 1534
Mennonites founded in 1536
Calvinist founded in 1555
Presbyterian found in 1560
Congregational founded in 1582
Baptist founded in 1609
etc. etc. on up to the present day Churches still being founded. No, I’m sorry, there is only one Christian Church who was there in 33 a.d. So, it only stands to reason that when Christ and then later the Apostles spoke of this Church they were in fact referring to the Catholic Church. Granted, the word Catholic didn’t appear until 180 a.d. by Theophilus of Antioch. Even still, you’ll have to take note that there were STILL no other Christian Churches around.
M
mikemck
Guest
Blasphemy, pure and simple.
Where does the Bible say anything at all about the pope?
S
ssejllenrad
Guest
By logic, it can be seen in apostolic succession directly rooted to Peter.
Where does the Bible say anything at all about multi-denominational pastors?
M
mikemck
Guest
None of which is found in scripture.
It doesn’t. It’s not prohibited, either. If a pastor can meet the requirements of more than one denomination and can serve two churches, then I don’t see a problem with that.
E
Ehud
Guest
MikeMcK et al,
Greetings!
Try this link for size!
john3-16.connectfree.co.uk/pope.html
Does anyone know what became of Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer?
Okay, some of his arguments here don’t relate directly to “doctrine and morals” but some clearly do? They seem to remain unsatisfactorily answered!
This was a BISHOP! Clearly a switched on one at that and unafraid to grasp the nettle of challenging the errors he found around him…
Greetings!
Try this link for size!
john3-16.connectfree.co.uk/pope.html
Does anyone know what became of Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer?
Okay, some of his arguments here don’t relate directly to “doctrine and morals” but some clearly do? They seem to remain unsatisfactorily answered!
This was a BISHOP! Clearly a switched on one at that and unafraid to grasp the nettle of challenging the errors he found around him…
S
Sixtus
Guest
Where is ‘Pope’ mentioned in the Bible?
Matt 16:18 ‘You are Peter [which means rock] and on this rock I will build my Church and the power of death shall never conquer it’
John 21:16-17 [Jesus said to Peter] Feed my lambs [and] feed my sheep.
Catholic teaching is also grounded in tradition. Something Protestants reject. The Bible had been around for over a 1000 years before the first Prods came along. The Church existed BEFORE the Bible was written. It is amazing that critics agree with the Catholic transcription of the Bible but not with her interpretation of the text. That is the paradox of Protestantism.
If you accept the Bible but reject Catholic teaching, what is being said is: I agree with what the Catholic Church wrote but not what they said’! Paradox!!
In the life of the Blessed Apostles, Peter commissioned his successor even though there were Apostles still alive. Why was that do you think? Why did Peter’s chair pass not to a fellow apostle but to those whom Peter commissioned? There is no record of discent among the early Church about this matter.
Peter commissioned Clement.He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him. Peter’s adjuicator was Linus who also succeeded in the Chair of Peter.
According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle .
Pope Linus (d. 79) was the second leader of the unified Catholic Church in the city of Rome.
The Catholic Church identifies Linus as the second Pope, immediately following the apostle Saint Peter, however some Protestant scholars hold Saint Linus to be the first Bishop of Rome, first appointed by Saint Paul, based upon Saint Peter’s claim preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII Section IV). Tertullian names Saint Clement to have been the first successor to Saint Peter, most other accounts (except Peter’s) have Linus as the first bishop of Rome following St Peter, though they vary significantly on the date of the commencement of his papacy. Most sources suggest that Linus became pope in 67, while Eusebius gives 69, the Catholic Encyclopedia 64, the Liber Pontificalis 56 and the Liberian Catalogue 55. The Vatican’s 2003 Annuario Pontificio cites the year 68. The discrepancy may be explained by Linus already being Saint Peter’s adjutor during his lifetime, and some of the sources may incorrectly choose this time. He was Pope for 11-years.
There were to be another 15-Popes before the Bible was written as we know it today. During this time, a time of great persecution of Christians, the Pope’s were very active in leading the Church through some of the most difficult times of its history. Most of them suffered martrydom.
Matt 16:18 ‘You are Peter [which means rock] and on this rock I will build my Church and the power of death shall never conquer it’
John 21:16-17 [Jesus said to Peter] Feed my lambs [and] feed my sheep.
Catholic teaching is also grounded in tradition. Something Protestants reject. The Bible had been around for over a 1000 years before the first Prods came along. The Church existed BEFORE the Bible was written. It is amazing that critics agree with the Catholic transcription of the Bible but not with her interpretation of the text. That is the paradox of Protestantism.
If you accept the Bible but reject Catholic teaching, what is being said is: I agree with what the Catholic Church wrote but not what they said’! Paradox!!
In the life of the Blessed Apostles, Peter commissioned his successor even though there were Apostles still alive. Why was that do you think? Why did Peter’s chair pass not to a fellow apostle but to those whom Peter commissioned? There is no record of discent among the early Church about this matter.
Peter commissioned Clement.He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him. Peter’s adjuicator was Linus who also succeeded in the Chair of Peter.
According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle .
Pope Linus (d. 79) was the second leader of the unified Catholic Church in the city of Rome.
The Catholic Church identifies Linus as the second Pope, immediately following the apostle Saint Peter, however some Protestant scholars hold Saint Linus to be the first Bishop of Rome, first appointed by Saint Paul, based upon Saint Peter’s claim preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII Section IV). Tertullian names Saint Clement to have been the first successor to Saint Peter, most other accounts (except Peter’s) have Linus as the first bishop of Rome following St Peter, though they vary significantly on the date of the commencement of his papacy. Most sources suggest that Linus became pope in 67, while Eusebius gives 69, the Catholic Encyclopedia 64, the Liber Pontificalis 56 and the Liberian Catalogue 55. The Vatican’s 2003 Annuario Pontificio cites the year 68. The discrepancy may be explained by Linus already being Saint Peter’s adjutor during his lifetime, and some of the sources may incorrectly choose this time. He was Pope for 11-years.
There were to be another 15-Popes before the Bible was written as we know it today. During this time, a time of great persecution of Christians, the Pope’s were very active in leading the Church through some of the most difficult times of its history. Most of them suffered martrydom.
S
Sixtus
Guest
References: New English Bible
New Advent Catholic Encylopaedia
New Advent Catholic Encylopaedia
M
mikemck
Guest
That’s swell. Now where does the Bible say anything about a pope?
R
ricko
Guest
Now the word “pope” is not in the bible. So I now assume that you will say that “proves” your point.
By that same line of reasoning the Holy Trinity doesn’t exist or for that matter neither does the bible since Trinity and bible are not in the bible.
By that same line of reasoning the Holy Trinity doesn’t exist or for that matter neither does the bible since Trinity and bible are not in the bible.
M
mikemck
Guest
But both the Trinity and the scriptures are taught in principle in the Bible. The idea of an “infallible” pope is not.
T
Tietjen
Guest
See thats the entire problem with Bible Only folks. If it’s not in the Bible, it just didn’t happen. For instance automobiles. They are mentioned, yet I bet you don’t play hop scotch on the interstates. And Christ lived on the Earth 33 years and never ate anything more than honey, fish, and bread right? No, the word Pope doesn’t exist in the Bible. That is a far cry from saying that there was no head of the Church after the death of Christ though. But you keep insisting that if it isn’t in the Bible then it didn’t happen. Ignore ALL the other texts that do exist and were written soon after the ascention if you wish. Ya know, the thing that is really ironic, is that all these sola scriptora people out there forget where the Bible itself came from (who compiled it). Yet, while they ignore the fact that it was the Catholic Church that did this, at the same time they are blind to everything else that doesn’t appear within it’s pages. Well, what can ya do but simply throw up your arms and say, “peace brother, may God some day open your eyes to the WHOLE truth.” God bless.
- Status