Catholics...For Your Advise.

[Bill_Pick]

No I don’t

Try this logic friend…

The Bible is the 'Inspired Word of God," because you seem unfilmilar with what the Bible actually say’s here it is for you. Please notice the word’s “all,” “inspired” and “by GOD.”

2Tim.3: [16] “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”

FACTS:

God cannot lie!

The Bible is the Inspired WORDS of God

The Bible was 100% written by the end of the First Century

At this point in time there existed ONLY One Church [that which is known world wide today as thee Catholic Church.] Now some 2000 years young!

And ONLY the Catholic Bible.

Thus the Bible has to and had to be from and through the CC and intended for Catholic Instruction and ONLY they have the God given power and authority to interpet it. [LOGIG didcates you can’t share what YOU don’t have!] ONLY the CC had the Bible for 1500 years as a exclusive from God Himself. Look up John 17:17

That friend is not circular logic, it’s FACT supported by history and logic:shrug:

Just read this very slow and try to understand,luke 1;43,mt 1;23,lk 1;35,dal 4;4

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Protestants - all of them - believe in sola scriptura. That doctrine cannot be found in Scripture. ‘Sola scriptura’ is a self-defeating dictrine, yet they believe it. Ergo protestants can’t think.

There are over 34,000 protestant sects and millions of protestants They believe in individual interpretation of Scripture; they believe each of them hears the voice of the Holy Spirit. Ergo protestants can’t think.

There’s more, but you get the picture. I’m not trying to insult protestants. It is what they profess which insults their intelligence. I’m just following along.

 

[jmcrae]

Protestants - all of them - believe in sola scriptura.

Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons do not.

That doctrine cannot be found in Scripture. ‘Sola scriptura’ is a self-defeating dictrine, yet they believe it. Ergo protestants can’t think.

Actually, most people nowadays can’t think - and it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, but rather, with the way we educate ourselves and our children. People don’t know how to think because they have never been taught what the process is.

There are over 34,000 protestant sects and millions of protestants They believe in individual interpretation of Scripture; they believe each of them hears the voice of the Holy Spirit. Ergo protestants can’t think.

Your premise and your conclusion don’t match - the one thing has little or nothing to do with the other thing. At best, you are assuming your conclusion. (Speaking of learning how to think … )

 

[Javl]

Protestants - all of them - believe in sola scriptura. That doctrine cannot be found in Scripture. ‘Sola scriptura’ is a self-defeating dictrine, yet they believe it. Ergo protestants can’t think.

There are over 34,000 protestant sects and millions of protestants They believe in individual interpretation of Scripture; they believe each of them hears the voice of the Holy Spirit. Ergo protestants can’t think.

There’s more, but you get the picture. I’m not trying to insult protestants. It is what they profess which insults their intelligence. I’m just following along.

Friend, it may be true about sola scriptura, but please don’t put all protestants into one category. Some can think better than we do. It’s just that some are mis-informed or not
aware of the complete truth. That is why we have these forums, to disseminate the truth.
God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually that’s the protestant approach. The Lord says, “This is my body.” You ignore what He says over what you wish to interpret. The Lord says, “If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” You ignore what He says over what you wish to interpret. Case closed on that one.

The Bible said Jesus was the SON of God. The Bible never said Jesus was the Father. The Bible merely said Jesus was IN the Father and the Father was in Him.
You are ignorant of Trinitarian theology. Go and study this bible you think you know and come back in 20 years.

Believe me, I have no problem with that.

That wan, crippled bit of bigotry is so worn it’s become a joke.

The problem with protestants is they can’t think.

Protestants - all of them - believe in sola scriptura. That doctrine cannot be found in Scripture. ‘Sola scriptura’ is a self-defeating dictrine, yet they believe it. Ergo protestants can’t think.

There are over 34,000 protestant sects and millions of protestants They believe in individual interpretation of Scripture; they believe each of them hears the voice of the Holy Spirit. Ergo protestants can’t think.

There’s more, but you get the picture. I’m not trying to insult protestants. It is what they profess which insults their intelligence. I’m just following along.

Ferde Rombola,

If that is what you believe, then you are not really “following along.” There are many Protestant Posts, showing we reject Mosacked’s offensive statements about the Virgin Mary.

Regarding your sidebar on Sola Scriptura: Not all Protestants accept Sola Scriptura. In fact, I have been arguing against it on the following Thread:

Click on arrow by my name for one of my many Posts on “What is Sola Scriptura.”

This is one of my “Protestant” Posts to Mosacked, on our current Thread:

Who has said that the “Divine part” of Jesus came from Mary? Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit. No one on this Thread is claiming otherwise.

Who has deified Mary? Catholics have clearly stated they do not deify or worship Mary.

No one is claiming that Mary was the “producer” of that which came from heaven.

Your claim that Mary was a “surrogate,” denies both the Prophecies of the OT, and the very words of the NT. There is no Scripture that claims Mary was a surrogate–so you are re-writing the N.T. for your own purposes. You are altering Holy Scripture–very dangerous.

The O.T. contains many prophecies regarding the coming of Christ–notice He would come as a descendant of David, according to the flesh, a son of David’s body. Jesus as “fully man” was a descendant through the line of David, as foretold by prophecy.

**2 Samuel 7: **12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

Psalm 132: 11 The LORD swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: “One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne. . .”

Jesus was descended from David “according to the flesh.”

Romans 1:
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

Jesus came as God incarnate, the Word became flesh.

John 1 (ESV): 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 ( John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Jesus was “born of a woman, born under the law.”

Galatians 4: 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

To deny that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, is to deny that Jesus came in the flesh, as a descendant of David.

Your denial has serious ramifications, extending to the crucifixion of Christ and His atonement of our sins through the sacrifice of His body and blood.

You malign the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, the mother of God Incarnate.

I welcome all “respectful” comments.

Anna

 

[ralphinal]

I doubt that Jesus would have called those who are trying “unable to think.”

Moslacked holds to some strange veiws. He and I discussed on one threads his idea that people in heaven can still sin, some will still sin, and be sent to hell.

That does not mean we should call him names. Or anyone else.

The days of hitting heretics with hammers is gone

 

[Anna_Scott]

The days of hitting heretics with hammers is gone

I’m really glad. uch:

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually, most people nowadays can’t think - and it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, but rather, with the way we educate ourselves and our children. People don’t know how to think because they have never been taught what the process is.

Soooooooooo true! :whacky:

Anna

 

[LutheranDK]

Speaking of arrogance, that is some arrogant statement. Can you read Aramaic and Koine Greek? These are the original languages used to record the Bible. I can read Hebrew, but find it extremely difficult to read Aramaic.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Koiné Greek, yes. Aramaic, no - but that’s not the original language of the OT (with the exception of parts of Daniel). The original language of the OT is Hebrew (Masoretic Hebrew, at that, not modern Hebrew which is not an entirely different kettle of fish, but still vastly different from OT Hebrew)

 

[jcarter]

You have not proven anything with this - just made statements.
Answer my challenge first (without resorting to strawmen!) and then maybe we can talk…in PM, yes.
I posted the question because I’m sick and tired of this Goebbels-like “reasoning” * = “Just keep posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over. Eventually, someone will buy it”. It’s an insult to everyones’ intelligence.

I apologize for the strawman. I worded my response badly. It was not intended to answer your question. I had thought of it more as separate challenge.

It would only be circular reasoning if we believed what the church was saying because it says it has authority. However, if we instead attempt to view the situation using documents from the period (which I think we generally agree is a good approach), than your accusation that we use circular reasoning fails. That is, I think, the approach most well-informed Catholics use (referring to the use of period documents). Nothing the original poster said implied that he held the beliefs in question simply because “the Church said so”.

The problem with protestants is they can’t think.

How can we feel offended, when the occasional Protestant attacks us, when we say things like this? That’s one of the most ridiculous generalizations I’ve ever seen.

Furthermore, we can’t criticize the ignorance of some Protestants in regards to our beliefs when we don’t know theirs (unless they are one of those tiny groups that follow a creed of their own making). The statement that all Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura can be compared to the equally ignorant statement that Catholics don’t believe in the sanctity of the Bible.

 

[ralphinal]

As much as I would like to, I think that cuddle toy attacks were banned by the Third Council of Plushia. It was as a result of the beanibabia heresy that this came about. Now, some of the EO accept this but some do not. Rome accepts it, but with the limitation that the plush toys involved not be teddy bears.

 

[Javl]

Koiné Greek, yes. Aramaic, no - but that’s not the original language of the OT (with the exception of parts of Daniel). The original language of the OT is Hebrew (Masoretic Hebrew, at that, not modern Hebrew which is not an entirely different kettle of fish, but still vastly different from OT Hebrew)

Ok, then I concede. Yes I know that the OT was written in Masoretic, but there are many copies in Aramaic, which are still in use by the Ethiopian Copts. And as you know, much of the early tranlations and writings were in Koine Greek.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

I doubt that Jesus would have called those who are trying “unable to think.”

Moslacked holds to some strange veiws. He and I discussed on one threads his idea that people in heaven can still sin, some will still sin, and be sent to hell.

That does not mean we should call him names. Or anyone else.

The days of hitting heretics with hammers is gone

I think we can make an exception for mosacked. That can be the only way we may get him to understand.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[youngsaint]

No offense I hope, just trying to make Catholics ‘see’ how some of us think.

1 – If the Sacraments themselves can save, doesn’t that mean that if a deviously evil man were to also partake of the Holy Communion, he would join you in your heaven? (please don’t reply and say he wouldn’t attend because even the evil Pharisees went for baptism at the Jordan river)

2 – If Mary was the mother of God, just because she gave birth to Jesus who is God, doesn’t that mean that if you put the foetus of humans into the body of a monkey, then that monkey would be the mother of humans? (no offense, but it’s the closest analogy I can think of).

3 – If the Catholic church is above scripture like what some people here say to explain why they do not follow certain scriptural teachings, wouldn’t that be refuting what God taught? So, is God the master or the disciple?

Hope to see some clear and objective answers.

.

1. Then he would be guilty of a mortal sin. And the sacraments themselves can’t save, but when you use them all in concert, like an orchestra, they help obtain grace, through the church.
2. OK, thats just weird,
   and the fetus would still have been conceived.
3. The Church is not above scripture, in fact, if you study both, they are the same. the Church biases everything on scripture, we don’t ignore anything. I don’t know where your coming from with that…

God Bless

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ok, then I concede. Yes I know that the OT was written in Masoretic, but there are many copies in Aramaic, which are still in use by the Ethiopian Copts. And as you know, much of the early translations and writings were in Koine Greek.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I realize this is a sidebar.

You are right, Javl.

And since the N.T. writers appear to have quoted a Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, Greek is very important.

The Hebrew OT writings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, do add a new perspective. Sadly, I must rely upon English translations of all Biblical languages.

On the topic of the Virgin Mary, I have found different variations of the OT “Virgin Prophecy”–some translations say young woman and some Virgin. I think scholars have been fighting over this for years. I’m just a simple Christian who reads just enough to get me in trouble.

I did study Modern Greek, when I lived in Greece, many years ago; but I’ve lost much of the language as the years have passed. One doesn’t meet many Greeks in Texas.

It is very interesting that Jesus and His Disciples spoke Aramaic. The language of the NT writers was Greek, so the Aramaic oral tradition of the NT was “recorded” in Greek.

You mentioned Ethiopian Aramaic copies of the OT. Then I’m guessing there would be Ethiopian Aramaic manuscripts of the NT? I really can’t remember from my studies. Guess I’m in need of more study.

My apologies for going off topic.

Anna

 

[Javl]

I realize this is a sidebar.

You are right, Javl.

And since the N.T. writers appear to have quoted a Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, Greek is very important.

The Hebrew OT writings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, do add a new perspective. Sadly, I must rely upon English translations of all Biblical languages.

On the topic of the Virgin Mary, I have found different variations of the OT “Virgin Prophecy”–some translations say young woman and some Virgin. I think scholars have been fighting over this for years. I’m just a simple Christian who reads just enough to get me in trouble.

I did study Modern Greek, when I lived in Greece, many years ago; but I’ve lost much of the language as the years have passed. One doesn’t meet many Greeks in Texas.

It is very interesting that Jesus and His Disciples spoke Aramaic. The language of the NT writers was Greek, so the Aramaic oral tradition of the NT was “recorded” in Greek.

You mentioned Ethiopian Aramaic copies of the OT. Then I’m guessing there would be Ethiopian Aramaic manuscripts of the NT? I really can’t remember from my studies. Guess I’m in need of more study.

My apologies for going off topic.

Anna

No problem, Anna. It’s your right.

The Septugent was writtten in Koine Greek, although many translators knew classical Greek. I tried studying Greek, but I was getting the letters confused with Russian letters ( I speak some Russian ) and pronouncing most of the words in Russian. So I gave it up.

And as for the Egyptian Copts, their liturgy is in Aramaic and their scriptures are in Aramaic. I also think there are some NT manuscripts that are in Aramaic in the Vatican Archives and also in one of the museums in Israel. Also, I have heard that some of the old Jewish Ultra-Orthodox still use and speak Aramaic.

Believe me, there is still so much more to learn, and I don’t know if I have much time left. But then, if and when I make it to Heaven, all this would probably be superfluous.

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

No problem, Anna. It’s your right.

The Septugent was writtten in Koine Greek, although many translators knew classical Greek. I tried studying Greek, but I was getting the letters confused with Russian letters ( I speak some Russian ) and pronouncing most of the words in Russian. So I gave it up.

And as for the Egyptian Copts, their liturgy is in Aramaic and their scriptures are in Aramaic. I also think there are some NT manuscripts that are in Aramaic in the Vatican Archives and also in one of the museums in Israel. Also, I have heard that some of the old Jewish Ultra-Orthodox still use and speak Aramaic.

Believe me, there is still so much more to learn, and I don’t know if I have much time left. But then, if and when I make it to Heaven, all this would probably be superfluous.

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Appreciate the info. I have read a number of books on the transmission of Scripture. Seems like the more I read, the more I realize how much I don’t know.

Anna

 

[Charlotte408]

I advise you to look up ‘advice’ in the dictionary.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sometimes we need diversions.

Anna

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by ralphinal
Mosacked,
I think I am starting to see what you are saying.

Is this correct, in you mind.

Jesus is God.

Jesus is man.

All human flesh is sinful.

Jesus had no sin.
*
Jesus’s flesh could not have been normal human flesh*

Since Jesus could not have normal human flesh, which is sinful, his flesh must have been specially created by God at the time of the Incarnation.

Am I hitting it as you see it?

OPPS! Way of the truth of the matter in this statement.

***I assume from you’re post that you are speaking here of the Christ born of Mary BEFORE HIS Passion, Death and Ressurection? Before He Rose from the dead GLORIFIED?

Sin and flesh have but a single connection. That is that sin is OFTEN, but not always through the “flesh” as in sins relating to God’s Moral Justice. Fornication, adultry, materbation, abortion ect.

Sin effects the SOUL*, not usually the body [yes aids and other STD’s do ] BUT the Bible is speaking of “flesh” as “HUMANITY” NOT as physical flesh. Sin’s effects are normally ONLY on one’s Soul [even though in a real sense all sins are in a manner… public in there consequences.]

The HUMAN NATURE of Jesus was identical to mankind in everyway BUT SIN. God cannot sin, nor could the GOD-man, SIN:thumbsup:**

Love and prayers,
Pat