I
In_His_Grace
Guest
greatly appreciated and blessings
- Status
I
In_His_Grace
Guest
It can be frustrating discussing with Catholics the whole “one true church” concept they lay claim to eazyduzit. Circular reasoning anyone?
By the way, I’m not drinking.God bless my Catholic brothers and sisters.
A
adrift
Guest
I have already asked Patrick gave a partial answer. I would like your response what is the definition of imputed and of righteousness?
E
eazyduzit
Guest
True, but I just take it for what it is. I would still be interested in what “the kingdom of heaven” means because it seems foundational. Hope you’re not overwhelmed Patrick!It can be frustrating discussing with Catholics the whole “one true church” concept they lay claim to eazyduzit. Circular reasoning anyone?
God bless my Catholic brothers and sisters.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Actually, if you want a good Catholic understanding of “the Kingdom of Heaven”, check out Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” (Chapter Three).
R
Reuben_J
Guest
If you happen to be fortunate enough to discus with an honest Catholic whose agenda is of lesser priority than simply just want to impart the truth, you will know that it will not involve circular reasoning. The One True Church does not have to resort to circular reasoning.It can be frustrating discussing with Catholics the whole “one true church” concept they lay claim to eazyduzit. Circular reasoning anyone?
God bless my Catholic brothers and sisters.
Sometimes it is hard to argue against what is right. Sometimes people argue for the sake of it. Sometimes people just want to win an argument.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thanks for replying and for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Yes, I would not discount that too. What you mean to say is that confession was part of the Baptism ritual, or process, if you want to. It sure could be those things.
On the other hand, if Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, then confession before it would be superfluous, especially for adult baptism. The reason being is that one cannot remember one’s sins committed the many years before the Baptism. As it is, Baptism does include the element of confession when the baptismal candidate makes a vow to reject Satan.
Not necessarily so. What makes it Sacramental and what makes it not? Sacrament is just a grace. If they (Baptism and Confession) are two separate activities, they can be just as much Sacramental depending on how important you want them to be.
I see there is stronger argument for both of them to be sacramental since both are graces (here, for the forgiveness of sins)
Again, what is a command and what is not? Look pretty much semantic to me and depend on how we want to make them to be.
In Jn 30:23, Jesus was sending them out with an instruction to do something …. Could not that be a command too? Would you rather Jesus used the word ‘command’ for a command and not ‘send’? If the two bear significant difference, where was the word command in the great commission? Of course, both had none.
Yes, I see how your belief in this. This is merely academic now but I am the wiser to know it.
God bless you too.
B
blanchardman
Guest
Do you agree it is in the Bible? That was my point. Meaning is secondary.
P
PJM
Guest
Acts 8:15-16 is an example of evidence that Johns Baptism was NOT for sin forgiveness; which would have then deferred to the still existing OT sin-forgiveness conditions.
Acts 8: [15] Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.[16] For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
I leave the rest to your dialog with R
Blessings,
PJM
P
PJM
Guest
Allow me to expand my question:
[1] Who can correctly understand AND translate correctly the bible?
[2] Must the entire bible be used in forming beliefs?
[3] Can [as it it possible] that one part of the bible can ever and doves override another part of the bible?
Sorry I was not more clear in my prior post:blush:
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
John 20 & 21
Here the term “woks” is meant to mean both actual deeds AND Teachings:thumbsup:
Lev 22: 21
[21] “The man that offereth a victim of peace offerings to the Lord, either paying his vows, or offering of his own accord, whether of calves or of sheep, shall offer it without blemish, that it may be acceptable: there shall be no blemish in it”
My point being that every SOUL has to be Perfect in order to access heaven
Mt 5:48
My dear friend this is
What you have been taught
& certainty what you WISH to believe; however it does not align with
God’s Truth
The entirety of the bile
The now 2,000 year old teachings of the RCC
It seined the necessary Divine and perfect Justice of God
It denies the nature of sin
It denies the reality that God MUST in an absolute sense permit man to FULLY exercise his God gifted freewill; intellect and mind.
Because God is Perfect so too; MUST one’s Soul be to enter into Eternity with Him. Amen
Continued Blessings
Which of the above would you like a fuller understanding of the Catholic teaching on?
Patrick
.
A
adrift
Guest
I cannot say it is or isn’t in the Bible until I know the definition you are using.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Reuben, got only a few seconds (spent to much time watching highlights of Bama game)
Don’t have scripture in front of me but pretty sure “go” and "baptize’’ are commands linguistically unlike the ‘sins will be remitted and retained’. Like there is a difference between ‘go and be a light to the world’(command) ,and ‘you* will be* light to the world’(declarative result). One is the result of another.
Good post.
Blessings
P
PJM
Guest
Originally Posted by eazyduzit View PostIt can be frustrating discussing with Catholics the whole “one true church” concept they lay claim to eazyduzit. Circular reasoning anyone?
God bless my Catholic brothers and sisters.
Patrick, your answer to every question always begins with Mt 16 and the saying “and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.
How do you define the “kingdom of heaven”?
It can be frustrating discussing with Catholics the whole “one true church” concept they lay claim to eazyduzit. Circular reasoning anyone?
God bless my Catholic brothers and sisters.
MY frequent reference to Mt 16 is in the HOPE that at some point GOD will grant you the grace to actually comprehend what it means; what Christ intended and then DID
“Circular” arguments seem to Me, to be a Protestant response to anything that either they don’t agree with or can’t correctly comprehend. I do however hold out the possibility that a Catholic could do the same; but have no evidence or recollection of it.
So dear fried is
:
Mt 16 somehow unclear?
**And a question that I’d truly appreciate an answer to:
Is there even one place; one verse;passage or teaching where GOD ever accepted other competitive faiths? Can there actually be other faith beliefs than what the CC has taught now for nearly 2,000 years. LONG before the Protestant reformation?**
[just to be different here]
**Eph 4: 1-7 **
“[1] I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, [2] With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. [3] Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism.[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. [7] But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ”
Continued Blessings
T
Tommy999
Guest
Hi Patrick,
Thanks again for answering my questions in posts #6 and #13 earlier. It really helped.
I have a different question if you don’t mind. I have held back on this one until now because I don’t know how to ask the question without potentially offending Catholics and I don’t want to do that because I deeply respect Catholicism or else I wouldn’t still be on CAF for over a year and a half.
However, this issue has been a stumbling block for me so I would like to address it here in a respectful way in the hopes that I may be able to overcome this obstacle.
**Issue: ** Virgin Mary Queen of Heaven title
My Current belief:
Mary was a godly and wonderful girl who is a model for all womanhood. She is to be admired and honored as the mother of our Lord for saying “Yes” out of her own free will to bear the Savior. She is not to be worshipped in the adoration sense.
Question:
Many non-Catholic Christians perceive that Catholicism holds such a strong devotion to Mary that it flirts with turning her into a goddess. I realize that is not the official Catholic position to worship her as a goddess, but some non-Catholic critics claim that the “Queen of Heaven” designation was adopted from the goddess Artemis/Diana worship that was prevalent in Ephesus in early New Testament times. See Acts 19:28.
They assert that it was no accident that that Mary was given the title of ‘Mother of God’ at the Council of Ephesus in 431, since Ephesus was the center of worship of the feminine goddess Artemis (to the Greeks) and Diana (to the Romans) for centuries prior to that.
It is believed by some that those pagans who used to worship the goddess Artemis after they converted to Christianity still held such a strong longing for the feminine divine that the Catholic Church decided to fill that void by elevating the status of the Virgin Mary above what Holy Scripture called for in order to make the transition of the pagans to Christianity easier by portraying her as the new ‘Queen of Heaven’ in place of Artemis.
**Please explain the Catholic position on what is the proper view of the Virgin Mary and why the above criticism of her status is misguided **
Related question: Did Catholicism placate other pagans by moving Christmas to around the same time as the winter solstice celebration in order to replace a major pagan holiday with a major Christian replacement in the same way they replaced Halloween with ‘All Saints Day’? (or at least that is what some critics contend).
In some non-Catholic circles, there is a school of thought that Catholicism allowed certain pagan beliefs to be introduced into Christianity in order to help pagans more easily adjust to their newfound faith and make them more comfortable in it, and in doing so, corrupted the Christian faith. I would like to know the Catholic answer to these things because these issues are currently a big obstacle for me. Thanks.
Respectfully,
Tommy
Thanks again for answering my questions in posts #6 and #13 earlier. It really helped.
I have a different question if you don’t mind. I have held back on this one until now because I don’t know how to ask the question without potentially offending Catholics and I don’t want to do that because I deeply respect Catholicism or else I wouldn’t still be on CAF for over a year and a half.
However, this issue has been a stumbling block for me so I would like to address it here in a respectful way in the hopes that I may be able to overcome this obstacle.
**Issue: ** Virgin Mary Queen of Heaven title
My Current belief:
Mary was a godly and wonderful girl who is a model for all womanhood. She is to be admired and honored as the mother of our Lord for saying “Yes” out of her own free will to bear the Savior. She is not to be worshipped in the adoration sense.
Question:
Many non-Catholic Christians perceive that Catholicism holds such a strong devotion to Mary that it flirts with turning her into a goddess. I realize that is not the official Catholic position to worship her as a goddess, but some non-Catholic critics claim that the “Queen of Heaven” designation was adopted from the goddess Artemis/Diana worship that was prevalent in Ephesus in early New Testament times. See Acts 19:28.
They assert that it was no accident that that Mary was given the title of ‘Mother of God’ at the Council of Ephesus in 431, since Ephesus was the center of worship of the feminine goddess Artemis (to the Greeks) and Diana (to the Romans) for centuries prior to that.
It is believed by some that those pagans who used to worship the goddess Artemis after they converted to Christianity still held such a strong longing for the feminine divine that the Catholic Church decided to fill that void by elevating the status of the Virgin Mary above what Holy Scripture called for in order to make the transition of the pagans to Christianity easier by portraying her as the new ‘Queen of Heaven’ in place of Artemis.
**Please explain the Catholic position on what is the proper view of the Virgin Mary and why the above criticism of her status is misguided **
Related question: Did Catholicism placate other pagans by moving Christmas to around the same time as the winter solstice celebration in order to replace a major pagan holiday with a major Christian replacement in the same way they replaced Halloween with ‘All Saints Day’? (or at least that is what some critics contend).
In some non-Catholic circles, there is a school of thought that Catholicism allowed certain pagan beliefs to be introduced into Christianity in order to help pagans more easily adjust to their newfound faith and make them more comfortable in it, and in doing so, corrupted the Christian faith. I would like to know the Catholic answer to these things because these issues are currently a big obstacle for me. Thanks.
Respectfully,
Tommy
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Are you Tiger or Crimson Tide?
We are more into the British Premier League soccer, so you can say the Bama game is pretty anonymous to me.
Ok, ok, I understand you. Thanks.
Btw, my Catholic Bible says it like this, “… so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Would I think ‘go’ = ‘I send you’? Sure. All the more, especially since He had to breathe on them the Holy Spirit. It kinda quite special, more like a prerogative before doing the job assigned to them. It is like, “I am going to send you out to do this but before you go, in order for you to be able to do it, I will give you the Holy Spirit first”.
Now, even if it is not construed as a command, which definitely it is, since in a teacher/pupil relationship, the request by the teacher has to be followed by the pupil, the instruction nevertheless is expected to be carried out by the apostles. It is hard to imagine that Jesus did all the fuss, breathing on them the Holy Spirit, saying that they received Him, and then not expecting them to do what he wanted them to.
God bless.
I
In_His_Grace
Guest
We certainly differ in our understanding of what is “church” and the Gospel message Patrick. Here is more from Ephesians…
*2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2: 1-10)
*
Blessings to you as well.
MY frequent reference to Mt 16 is in the HOPE that at some point GOD will grant you the grace to actually comprehend what it means; what Christ intended and then DID
“Circular” arguments seem to Me, to be a Protestant response to anything that either they don’t agree with or can’t correctly comprehend. I do however hold out the possibility that a Catholic could do the same; but have no evidence or recollection of it.
So dear fried is
:
Mt 16 somehow unclear?
**And a question that I’d truly appreciate an answer to:
Is there even one place; one verse;passage or teaching where GOD ever accepted other competitive faiths? Can there actually be other faith beliefs than what the CC has taught now for nearly 2,000 years. LONG before the Protestant reformation?**
[just to be different here]
**Eph 4: 1-7 **
“[1] I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, [2] With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. [3] Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism.[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. [7] But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ”
Continued Blessings
*2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2: 1-10)
*
Blessings to you as well.
.
MY frequent reference to Mt 16 is in the HOPE that at some point GOD will grant you the grace to actually comprehend what it means; what Christ intended and then DID
“Circular” arguments seem to Me, to be a Protestant response to anything that either they don’t agree with or can’t correctly comprehend. I do however hold out the possibility that a Catholic could do the same; but have no evidence or recollection of it.
So dear fried is
:
Mt 16 somehow unclear?
**And a question that I’d truly appreciate an answer to:
Is there even one place; one verse;passage or teaching where GOD ever accepted other competitive faiths? Can there actually be other faith beliefs than what the CC has taught now for nearly 2,000 years. LONG before the Protestant reformation?**
[just to be different here]
**Eph 4: 1-7 **
“[1] I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, [2] With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. [3] Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism.[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. [7] But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ”
Continued Blessings
B
blanchardman
Guest
You say that John 20:30-31 & 21:24-25 is also about teachings.I do not see that. Do you have other scripture to support your position?
Matt 5:48 Is in the middle of Him teaching about how to act in this life. Why would someone think this verse does not?
In 2 Corinthians 13:11 Paul says" BE perfect,BE of good comfort, BE of one mind, live in peace." Did Paul mean for them to accomplish three and take care of the other one after you die? Or is it more logical to think he expected them to accomplish all four in this life?
In Philippians 3:15 Paul says “Let us therefore,as many as BE PERFECT,”. Was he praying to the saints? Or did he think (know) that some were perfect?
A
adrift
Guest
Doesn’t anyone have an answer to this well thought out question?
I hope others who are better at answering do so.
A quick answer for Mary being the queen of heaven is found in the fact that Jesus is king. The queen was always the mother not his wife. Since Jesus is king, that would make His mother queen. Mary is never separated from her son. All that she is, is due to her son. Mary always points the way to Him. Remember the last recorded words of Mary “Do whatever he tells you.”
It is better explained by EWTN please read as a starting point if you have more questions.
- Status