T
tgGodsway
Guest
Not hardly. Isaiah 55 was a prophetic word 700 years before Christ. God’s usual way of speaking to his people was through his prophets. Not sure what that has to do with tradition.
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Depending on how you read the text, the word “apostle” is also associated with Timothy, Silas and a few others in the NT.
I think this serves as more support for the fact that the visible, authoritative Church was meant to continue. The Church’s power to bind and loose certainly didn’t end with the death of the last apostle to live contemporary with Christ.
But they all required recognition from the visible Church, without exception. It was how a legitimate apostle and false prophet were told apart.
I think this serves as more support for the fact that the visible, authoritative Church was meant to continue. The Church’s power to bind and loose certainly didn’t end with the death of the last apostle to live contemporary with Christ.
But they all required recognition from the visible Church, without exception. It was how a legitimate apostle and false prophet were told apart.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well maybe we are only disagreeing in mere semantics. But the Apostles and all writers of the N.T. we’re inspired to write God’s word down. They did. Tradition may have played a part until the Gospel story was written and passed among them. I thank God that he inspired the writers to get the story down on parchment because of the weakness of men who twist the story. Aren’t you?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
But the real problem here is the tradition that came into sight centuries later that directly contradict the inspired scripture. This is the elephant in the room.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
You mean that what God said isn’t enough! He was found in lack?
M
MT1926
Guest
Sure this is probably a huge problem in our day and age, but people back then lived with transferring traditions and teachings from the mouth of one to ears of another. They prided themselves on the ability to get every single detail correct. I’m not sure why you can’t accept the fact that no single Church had a complete Bible until long after the death of the Apostles. You act like the the Church in Corinth sat around reading John’s Gospel in 60 AD.
How do you know a lot has changed? Not to mention aren’t all of us going back to inspired scripture with our arguments? You act like we are sitting here spouting out oral traditions with no Biblical evidence. The fact that we all go back to what Paul wanted us to know and come to different conclusions on what we believe he taught is pretty hard evidence that he did not intend for us (the common man) to interpret his writings.
Not sure why you keep bringing it up. Once again, I have shown you this over and over again from scripture. The only thing you are able to prove is that you do not agree with my interpretation and I don’t agree with yours. How does our disagreement on interpretation prove anything to the entire Christian world? Is our disagreements St. Paul’s intention from the beginning?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Whether Jesus establish the church or not his word is enough. God may use his church to proclaim his truth, unless we filter out that truth and replace it with things God never said. Some vessels are for Honor while others are for dishonor.
M
MT1926
Guest
And yet you have been unable to show us this elephant. All you can do is point to your own disagreement on interpretation and say see look there it is a “direct contradiction”.
Please, look up the definition of a contradiction and then come back to me with some hard proof of a single teaching from the Catholic Church that the Bible teaches the exact opposite.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I’ve given several even recently. But it does not matter to you.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Paul taught that everyone is a sinner except Christ. You teach that Mary too was sinless, and thus you plunge the CC into contradiction. I have a list of things
Last edited:
D
deMontfort
Guest
Then list them already instead of being coy with them.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I’ve listed them before but it all falls on deaf ears. But so that I’m historically accurate I will wait until I get home to my desk.
M
MT1926
Guest
And you teach that babies are sinless and can get to heaven without being born again. So either St. Paul was using exaggeration to make a point of all you Jews and Gentiles sin without a distinction or we both are wrong.
You either have to admit there are exceptions to this verse or you have to admit that St. Paul was including babies in his “ALL”.
You choose
God bless
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well if you can produce a baby who sins then you’ve won me. Inspired scripture says only little about it. So I refuse to conclude where the scriptures do not conclude. If you want to speak ahead of scripture, you go ahead.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well if babies were included in his thought then Paul would need to produce a sinning baby. I will study Jewish custom on this.
M
MT1926
Guest
So I guess you agree All might not mean All?
But you have no problem concluding that St. Paul included Mary in his all, even though scripture says nothing about it?
Last edited:
M
MT1926
Guest
That’s the whole point of my argument babies aren’t included in his thought.
The Chapter 3 St. Paul is dealing with Jews who think they are better of than Gentiles because they are God’s chosen people. It’s in this context that Paul says “ALL”. Kind of like Y’ALL, every single one of you out there that I am speaking to. He is not speaking about every single person on the face of the earth in this context.
Every single person on the face of the earth isn’t even included in his thought when he made this statement, because the “ALL” was the people he was writing this letter to.
Once again this just proves my point. The only contradiction you can find is in your own private interpretation of scripture.
Just curiously, where does St. Paul make an exception for Christ in this verse?
H
hope
Guest
There is no contradiction nor can you show one. I have gone through the thread. I could have missed it so maybe you can repost any i missed. You mentioned the Eucharist which of course is very scriptural. We may disagree on what scripture says but it doesn’t contradict. You also mentioned purgatory. There is much in scripture that points to a purging.
Read this than come back that it isn’t scriptural.
Purgatory
You also believe that the Immaculate Conception is not in scripture.
Immaculate Conception
If you read this, than you should be aware that there is no elephant but a disagreement as to how to understand scripture,
The true elephant in the room is Acts 8:31
Read this than come back that it isn’t scriptural.
Purgatory
You also believe that the Immaculate Conception is not in scripture.
Immaculate Conception
If you read this, than you should be aware that there is no elephant but a disagreement as to how to understand scripture,
The true elephant in the room is Acts 8:31
Scripture does not support the view of self-interpretation of scripture.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
What you are saying is so ridiculous that I almost do not want to respond. Paul may have been dealing with a specific issue in the Church at Rome, but his statements were universal when he said, "… For we have preciously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are ALL UNDER SIN. 3:9. Then he quotes from Psalms 14 when he said, “… there is NONE who does good, NO NOT ONE.” Ro. 3:12 These are all general in nature and apply to anyone and everyone.
Look,… Adam and Eve were NOT born sinners. But when they sinned, they became sinners and plunged the race into the potential to sin, so that man became unable to NOT sin.
We, today are not born sinners, but once we come to the understanding of right from wrong, and then choose to do wrong, we (then) become a sinner. The pathway to becoming a sinner is by our tree of knowledge of what is right and wrong. Paul said that the natural man is “without excuse…” Ro. 1:20.
Babies, on the other hand, and the mentally impaired who do not have this KNOWLEDGE or the capacity to have knowledge of good and evil, remain in a state of sinless-ness. Their ignorance or simple inability to understand right from wrong, keeps them from becoming GUILTY.
Jesus said it this way: “I came into this world for judgment, in order that those who do not see will see, and those who do see, will become blind.” v40 Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and asked Him, ‘We aren’t blind too, are we?’, v41 If you were blind, Jesus told them, 'you wouldn’t have sin. But now that you say, ‘we see’ your sin remains." John 9:39-41
The entrance of sin comes from the knowledge of sin, not simply being born physically. Paul said it this way, "… by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. Ro. 3:20
Secondly, new birth, for an infant is impossible. Why? Because new birth comes by hearing and understanding and accepting the word of God. see the writings of your first pope in 1st. Peter 1:23,
"having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, THORUGH THE WORD OF GOD which lives and abides forever. " Babies do not have this capacity to understand the concepts of the salvation message found in the scriptures.
If your god will sentence a baby to the fires of hell, simply because he/she didn’t make it to the altar of baptism … a baby that knows nothing about right and wrong, a baby who does not even have the capacity to know right from wrong, … then you can keep that god. That god is not the god of the bible anyway.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
You are no Philip, I guarantee it. Your argument is sad. I don’t have time tonight to cover your points, but my interpretation is not private. We share it with millions around the world. You and others keep saying it is some kind of private interpretation.
Nonsense. I do not stand alone in my views. I stand with many contemporary theologians and a few from the past such as: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards.
And on certain things people like: John Wesley Charles Finney, even Philip Melanchthon and Arminius. How about Francis Schaeffer, Philip Hughes, C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, Billy Graham.
Some of them are post-reformist, but we share a few things with them too.
- Status