Denominations which allow Women Pastors.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Recognizing any possibility at all of human fallibility would ruin any arguments *you *have when you seek recourse to using the NT.

Thus, whenever you say, “I believe that God is love”.
When, say, an atheist asks you: how do you know?
And you cite: 1 John…

you’ll have to say, “Except that I don’t really know for sure if that is true, because I don’t really know for sure if 1 John is God’s Word, because I don’t really know if the Church which discerned this for me, is correct, because I don’t really believe the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.”

See? Ruined.

Also, whenever you argue against any Catholic teaching your position will be ruined.

For example. Let’s say you say, “Well, God wouldn’t care if [fill in the blank] because God said [fill in the blank] which seems to argue against Catholic teaching A”

All the Catholic has to do is say, “Well, since you don’t believe that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility, then you can’'t know that the Church got it right in discerning that this Scripture verse is actually theopneustos, then you can’t actually know that God really said [fill in the blank], can you?”

Your argument against Catholic teaching A will be ruined.
Click to expand...
No nothing is ruined for me, PRMerger. Novocastrian explained this to you in post #406.
 
TheSeeker2014 said:
Not because Bishops told us so (though many out there may do so cuz of that) but because we look into it ourselves too…
Which we can do because we are part of the Chruch too, because we are Christians.
Click to expand...
TheSeeker,

Only because Catholic Bishops told you that the NT has 27 books are you able to confidently say that they are the Written Word of God.

Who is the “We” above that has looked into it ourselves?

Did the “we” look at the other couple of hundred writings to determine if they should be in scripture? It’s not just a matter of “if” the 27 are all inspired and inerrant, it’s also a question of “are there any books missing?”

Note, you are way off topic.

I only point this out. 😉
 
TheSeeker2014 said:
However like i stated before if one is really being led by the Spirit then they would all be led to the same. Thus we all agree on the books. Epiphany!
Click to expand...
TheSeeker,

What if the Church was not led by the Holy Spirit and was not infallible?:eek:

The Church may have picked the wrong 27 books of the NT (we won’ even touch the OT right now). 😊

Perhaps the Book of Revelation is not inspired and should not be in the bible (some thought it was not).

And the Didache is inspired and should be in the bible (some thought it was).

Question is: How do you know that the Church was led by the Spirit?

What is your proof?
 
PRmerger said:
Actually, no.

That is the problem with a whole bunch of folks rejecting the Church’s teaching on infallibility, when they don’t even know what it means for the Church to be infallible.

It means this, nothing less and nothing more: the Holy Spirit prevents the Catholic Church from teaching what is true that which is false, and prevents the CC from teaching that which is false as what is true.

So, for example, a sinful pope who has a mistress and lies to his fellow bishops, will still be prevented from declaring, “I declare through my office that Jesus sinned!”

No, Seeker. Making a mistake is not necessarily sinning.

For example, a child with Down Syndrome may make a mistake and put her shoes on the wrong feet. But that’s not the same thing as sinning.

I may make a mistake and put 2 cups of sugar in a recipe instead of 2 tsps, but that is not a sin.

Nope. Not everyone sins.

Unless you want to say that this little cutie pie has sinned? If so, what sin did she do?

http://images.agoramedia.com/wte3.0/gcms/pg-toddler-holding-spoon-with-father.jpg
Click to expand...
argue with the dictionary on what the term means, not with me.
No that is not what i said, I did not say making a mistake was sinning, I SAID sinning is making a mistake… again a great example for how you twist things to say whatyou wan them to say so you could appear to be right… which is not a good fruit btw 😉
and Yes, it would be inherited sin. Plus she does have the choice at that age to listen to parents or not because by that age the normally know what you are talking about.
Argue with the bible that you claim is true merely because someone told you so :rolleyes:
Romans 3
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and this
So, for example, a sinful pope who has a mistress and lies to his fellow bishops, will still be prevented from declaring, “I declare through my office that Jesus sinned!”

is ridculous. He has choice over his tongue… because he has choices and has the choice to sin which is a kind of mistake and still can profess because he has that ability.
 
PRmerger said:
Seeker, you are not being clear.

Are you saying that you prayed, and studied and God told you that Hebrews is inspired?
And that the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

What, exactly, did you “study” that told you these things?

If you “studied” the books you concluded certain things. What did you conclude? And what prompted these conclusions?

And you did this for all 27 books, yes?

If not, then you are taking the word of the Catholic Church to tell you that the Gospel of Mark is inspired but that the Gospel of Barnabas is not.
Click to expand...
Yes even though i said it before but yet it, once again ignored.
Told you already.
and I told you already once again.
and i said yes to this many times.
:rolleyes:
 
O wait i finally get it!!

Prayer and study (of where the book came from and how it was written and how wrote it and the time of it being written and the culture of that time ect ect ect…) and prayer which is communication with God is not a good enough answer…
Because well you know,
God is not audible
He won’t answer
He wouldn’t know if something was God inspired or not
Or I am just a common Christian
silly me!
Such a way is invaild for me but not for someone with a status in the Church…
So the truth is I am just secretly listening and following the catholic church and is afraid to reveal this to a catholic…
Yep makes total sense. because I do not seem to have the ability to think for myself and ask God what He thinks .
Because all who follow Him directly is not led to the same. Even though it would be the same Spirit leading.
silly me!!
:rolleyes:

Well it was my answer and I had explained it and so has others on this page that knew EXACTLY what I was talking about. Just as the Church makes decisions being led by the Holy Spirit, so do we and that does not mean we do these things under our own authority… but Gods. same thing same process. Have a wonder rest of your days. I gave my answers and they can be observed or not.
 
PRmerger said:
What an odd thing to say, given these previous posts of yours:

To wit:

And

And

And

It seems that, again, you are reserving for yourself the right to do what you object in others?

[SIGN1]I mean, really, you sure do seem quite confident that you know how everyone should follow God.
[/SIGN1]
That’s fine, Tom. Really. I don’t have a problem with that.

It’s just odd that you wouldn’t allow others to have this same ability.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif
Click to expand...
I am not telling anyone else just how they should or should not follow God unless by “It’s just odd that you wouldn’t allow others to have this same ability”, you mean me saying that no one has the right to force themselves or their beliefs on others, is that what you are trying to say by this statement?

God, in a way, asked me to speak, therefore I am attempting to speak and this is one of the places that I attempt to speak.

What, if anything, anyone does with what I write or say is up to them, it is just what I used to call “my job” but now I call “Our job” to say and/or write it.
 
Tom_Baum said:
I am not telling anyone else just how they should or should not follow God unless by “It’s just odd that you wouldn’t allow others to have this same ability”, you mean me saying that no one has the right to force themselves or their beliefs on others, is that what you are trying to say by this statement?
Click to expand...
You can’t have it both ways, Tom.

You can’t post and post and post, all your different arguments and positions and thoughts on religion, and say, “I’m not telling anyone else how to follow God” while telling me, when I post all my different arguments and positions and thoughts on religion, “You should stop telling people how to follow God.”

I am simply doing what you are doing.

So either we’re both just offering our arguments and positions and thoughts, or we, both of us, are "telling people how to follow God.
 
TheSeeker2014 said:
O wait i finally get it!!

Prayer and study (of where the book came from and how it was written and how wrote it and the time of it being written and the culture of that time ect ect ect…)
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. Thank you. Finally a list of criteria.

Who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? How do you know?

And where did the Gospel of Mark come from?

And why does that list exclude the Shepherd of Hermas? Wouldn’t it also be considered theopneustos if one applies the same critera?
 
Porknpie said:
Yes, this is confusing and inconsistent. The statement as written would result in no evangelization whatsoever, either now or during the apostolic age. The apostles would never have left Jerusalem and none of them would have died as martyrs. Perhaps we would all still be pagans or Muslims. The conversion of Rome would not have occurred. There would be no vatican.

(Then again there would not have been a reformation either.)
Click to expand...
As far as, “none of them would have died as martyrs”, the “reason” many of them did die as martyrs is that they did NOT force their faith on others but professed their faith and accepted the “force” used on them.

Isn’t this what a “martyr” is?

A “martyr” is not one who forces him/herself or his/her beliefs on others, he/she is one who professes their faith without the backup of a man-made sword, correct or not?
 
Tom_Baum said:
As far as, “none of them would have died as martyrs”, the “reason” many of them did die as martyrs is that they did NOT force their faith on others but professed their faith and accepted the “force” used on them.

Isn’t this what a “martyr” is?

A “martyr” is not one who forces him/herself or his/her beliefs on others, he/she is one who professes their faith without the backup of a man-made sword, correct or not?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is contrary to Catholic teaching that anyone be forced to convert to Catholicism.
 
PRmerger said:
Recognizing any possibility at all of human fallibility would ruin any arguments *you *have when you seek recourse to using the NT.

Thus, whenever you say, “I believe that God is love”.
When, say, an atheist asks you: how do you know?
And you cite: 1 John…

you’ll have to say, “Except that I don’t really know for sure if that is true, because I don’t really know for sure if 1 John is God’s Word, because I don’t really know if the Church which discerned this for me, is correct, because I don’t really believe the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.”

See? Ruined.

Also, whenever you argue against any Catholic teaching your position will be ruined.

For example. Let’s say you say, “Well, God wouldn’t care if [fill in the blank] because God said [fill in the blank] which seems to argue against Catholic teaching A”

All the Catholic has to do is say, “Well, since you don’t believe that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility, then you can’'t know that the Church got it right in discerning that this Scripture verse is actually theopneustos, then you can’t actually know that God really said [fill in the blank], can you?”

Your argument against Catholic teaching A will be ruined.
Click to expand...
You appear to be arguing that infallibility is required for a belief to be justified, i.e. knowledge. Is this the case?
 
Novocastrian said:
Ok, great. Then perhaps you can explain to me why one can’t fallibly know the correctness of the NT canon.
Click to expand...
Well, it simply makes one an easy target for a non-believer.

When a Christian, who has rejected the authority of the CC to discern the NT canon, says, “Well, Jesus said that unless you have to come through Me to get to heaven”, all the non-believer has to say is: “well, since you’re not sure that the CC got it right about the Gospel of John being inspired, I guess you’re not really sure that Jesus said that, so why should I be a Christian?”
 
believe
  1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
  2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
  3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
  4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
  5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town. Verb phrases
know
  1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
  2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
  3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
  4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
  5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
  6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
I happen to believe that believe and know are two different words with two different meanings even tho there seem to be many that use these words as if they mean the same exact thing.

Sometimes God rewards our belief with knowledge but even fervent belief, in my opinion, does not change belief into knowledge.

One of the strange things about knowledge from God is that, sometimes at least, one finds what one is not necessarily looking for, God can be quite the surpriser.
 
Tom_Baum said:
As far as, “none of them would have died as martyrs”, the “reason” many of them did die as martyrs is that they did NOT force their faith on others but professed their faith and accepted the “force” used on them.

Isn’t this what a “martyr” is?

A “martyr” is not one who forces him/herself or his/her beliefs on others, he/she is one who professes their faith without the backup of a man-made sword, correct or not?
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,

You are building a straw man and knocking it down. I said nothing about the apostles or disciples forcing their faith on anyone. The evangelized, they testified. Consistent with this, the Catechism calls us to have “respectful dialogue” with non-Catholics. This teaching is very apostolic.

Martyr definition is here from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Can be a “witness to the faith” or one who"died for the faith". Hence the phrase: “Martyrs who died for the faith”.

The above is a different issue than the Crusades, which took back lands conquered by the Muslims.

Admittedly, way off topic.

PnP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top