Faith or work can save us?

[De_Maria]

cont’d

If Paul were to strengthen someone, or James, should we conclude they had pre-eminence over the others? On what bases? …

No. There is no basis for that deduction. But we have Christ’s word telling us that He selected Peter to the Rock upon which He would build His Church, the Shepherd who would feed His Sheep, the Pillar who would sustain his brethren and the one whom the Father chose to announce that Jesus is the Son of God.

Here’s an example: The Apostle Paul used the exact same Greek word in Romans 1:11 where he said that he “long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to the end that you may be established=strengthened.”

So Paul too strengthened his brethren. Does this mean that Paul had a pre-eminence over the other Apostles? Of course not.

Notice that St. Paul also said that he didn’t want to plow another man’s field. Thus, St. Paul wrote in the context of distinguishing between the sheep and the Shepherds. He didn’t say that he was replacing the Shepherds who were already leading the sheep.

This boarders on ridiculous to any serious bible student.
You are trying to connect dots that do not connect here in this passage.

On the contrary, not only am I connecting dots. My dots form a clear picture. You don’t have any dots to connect and are merely trying to remove some of mine.

Your last scripture was John 21:15-17 where Jesus said 3 times, Peter feed my sheep. Two Greek words are employed for the word feed here. The first and third word employ the word bosko= to feed. But the second word in verse 16 is the Greek word poimaino which means to feed and to rule. So, we can say that Peter was called to feed and to rule.

Correctomundo.

But no one disputes this. Of course Peter was called to feed (Shepherd) and rule. All of the Apostles were.

But St. Peter was called to feed and to rule even over the other Apostles. Remember, “strengthen your brethren”.

Actually this same Greek word is employed in Acts 20:28 where the Apostle Paul tells a group of Elders to also "feed=rule at Ephesus.

Have you ever read in Scripture:

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

You read Scripture according to the letter. We, according to the Spirit.

Why do you still draw an inference here?.. How does this passage show Peter as pre-eminent? It doesn’t.

I don’t draw an inference there. I know what it means because the meaning preceded the verse. The Scripture was written based upon the pre-existing command of our Lord.

Again, your argument is all drawn from inference and conjecture not the sum of Thy Word.

[/QUOTE]
Nope. We don’t infer nor conjecture. The Catholic Church Teaches that which Jesus Christ commanded.

 

[De_Maria]

From what I understand here, kecharitomene can mean a sense of completeness, but Greek scholars argue on all the nuances of the word.

Protestant scholars. Three quarters of all Christians are in agreement as to the meaning of the word. Catholic and Orthodox scholars agree. We are the vast majority of Christians. Only Protestants argue the point.

The prefect tense carries with it a sense of fullness or completion, it is said.

In the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to make a fresh Latin translation of the bible where the idea of fullness and completion eventually (from this verse) became to mean sinless from conception. I want to back up and apply a simple hermeneutic of interpretation here.
If Mary was sinless from conception suggesting completeness, does the word itself suggest completeness FROM HER CONCEPTION or was that another inference?

It doesn’t just mean “completeness”. It means, “always”. Therefore, if she was always full of grace, that means that she was full of grace from conception.

Catholcpoint.blogspot.com, take liberty on this point to imply 'one who has always been full of grace." The Greek word here does NOT make that leap and these scholars know it. When I said catholic apologist took liberty, this is a fact.

Catholic and Orthodox scholars were in agreement on this point. It is only Protestant “scholars” who disagree and they came along 1200 years later.

But even if I conceded the point, hermeneutics demands a unity of thought in the minds of the Apostolic circle, seeing that all of them were inspired to write from the same Holy Spirit.

That unity of thought was provided by Jesus Christ.

How do the other writers and Apostles come into acknowledgement and agreement that Mary was full of grace from conception, or do they? … There is no hint of acknowledgment much less agreement.

By the fact that they did not deny it.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Remember the biblical requirement to find a truth and thus establish doctrine is found “upon the mouth of two or three witnesses letting EVERY word be established.”

Sure. We have the Catholics and Orthodox in agreement. They were the only Churches that existed before the Protestants came along. So, that’s 100% of the witnesses, in favor.

Actually there are no other scriptures in the New Testament that says what Catholic scholars said about Matt. 1:28. There are no other voices or writers saying what they have concluded here. That should be a red flag to any serious bible student who believes the SUM of Thy word is Truth.

We don’t go by Scripture alone. But, you do. And you have no witness, anywhere, not in Scripture or out, that anyone taught Scripture alone until the Protestants invented it.

But let’s go a little further conceding the (above) point again. …Okay…then at conception she NEEDED grace because she was in a state of sin.

No. She was never in a state of sin. The gift prevented that.

How is this taught not only from Matthew’s point of view, but from all other biblical witnesses? Lets not forget the huge leap of thought between fullness of grace and sinless-ness. God alone needs no Grace, for God is sinless.

And God gave Mary a huge gift:

Luke 1:499 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

When the Holy Spirit said through Paul, "For ALL have sinned and fall short "… Rom 3:23 did He mean almost all have sinned … all except Mary … ?

Yes. St. Paul concedes that not all have sinned.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Why did Paul not seem to know anything about this so-called miracle given to Mary in Matt. 1:28?

Luke.

Why is there absolutely no acknowledgment or agreement anywhere in scripture?

1. Because the world was being introduced to Jesus.
2. We could ask the same question about Sola Scriptura.

Why would Mary and her husband offer a sin offering according to Moses?..

To fulfill all righteousness.
Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Jesus did not need His sins washed away, did He?

Why did she cry out calling God her Savior if she was sinless?

Because God is her Saviour.

There is too much hyperbole here for any serious student of scripture.

There is no hyperbole. These are simple Teachings that simple and faithful Catholics accept without blinking an eye. You find them hard to believe because your tradition has rejected the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

Blessing to you,

[/QUOTE]
And to you.

 

[MonteRCMS]

All the popes of the Catholic Church for 300 years were murdered.

Has an impact.

 

[tgGodsway]

It’s my understand that the Dead Sea Scrolls cleared this up…“works of the law”. The phrase “works of the law” is only found in two places; Romans and in the DSS document labeled 4QMMT. 4QMMT is a letter written by the Essenes to the Pharisees and it’s quite clear that “works of the law” is exactly what the CC says…ceremonial Jewish laws…not good works.

On what scriptural bases did you come to this conclusion? How did the Apostle Paul make this distinction between ceremonial law and the whole of the law? or did he?

If he did, please sight the passage that makes this distinction.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

On what scriptural bases did you come to this conclusion? How did the Apostle Paul make this distinction between ceremonial law and the whole of the law? or did he?

If he did, please sight the passage that makes this distinction.

I didn’t claim the basis was Scriptural. Maybe you didn’t read it closely or I didn’t explain it well? In all of antiquity the phrase “works of the law” is only found in two places: St. Paul’s writings and the document labeled 4QMMT of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 4QMMT shows the phrase “works of the law” to be referring to the old Jewish ceremonial laws; circumcision, ceremonial washings etc.

http://wiki.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/images/0/0a/Dead_sea_scrolls_outline.pdf

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, T!

Here’s why you keep getting things wrong:

The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning “father”. In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops[18] and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.[19][20][21][22][23] The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).[24] The earliest recorded use of the title “pope” in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope)

The title was first used in the third century, not as you put it 604 AD.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Your argument is so old…

Did Jesus once Called the Apostles Apostles?

Did the Apostles once Call God the Triune God?

Did Jesus Commanded that His Followers represent His Name as Christians?

Did Jesus Followers (the Twelve and the rest) become a different religious group from those of the Way?

Your problem is, as that of many non-Catholics, that you claim to observe Sacred Scriptures… but you only do so if and when they support what you perceive as the “correct” revelation… here’s Scriptures telling you about Cephas Primacy:

1Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. 2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (St. Matthew 10)

Either St. Matthew got it wrong (which would then necessitate that the Holy Spirit that Inspired his Writing got it wrong) or Cephas somehow got butted up to number one.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Did the Apostles teach, the priesthood (concerning Church government) who would teach transubstantiation in the Eucharist? If they did, please give me a clear verse or two. Better yet, give me at least two Apostles to acknowledge and approve this revelation. Otherwise you have not arrived at a divine truth on these things.

You have a gap in your understanding because you are removed from Church’s history.

Did you know that Jesus did not leave the Apostles with a written “play book?:”

12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (St. John 16)

Can you not see how the Holy Spirit Unfolded the Truth as the Church developed?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…again, go to Scriptures; it is Cephas who is placed as first amongst the Apostles; it is Cephas alone who Jesus selects to Delegate the Keys of the Kingdom; it is Cephas alone who Jesus selects to build his Body/Community upon; it is Cephas who speaks and gathers… even when St. Paul’s Teaching and Writing became questionable, it was Cephas that corrected the error and declared St. Paul’s Writings as Scriptures.

When you put all these things together… it’s hard to accept Twelve Prime Popes.

Then we have Church history…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[tgGodsway]

jcrichton, if my argument is old, yours is even older for sure.

Actually, your argument is nonsensical. Here is why: Since when does a list of people automatically infer some kind of supremacy in the list starting with the first person? In other words, if I have a list of ten people’s names on it, where is it implied that the first person on the list is somehow the greatest person on this list? Where is that implied? implicitly or explicitly?

You are forgetting a grandiose bible principle here. In God’s kingdom, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. This is God’s way of doing things not this grandstanding and imposing greatness over others. That is of the flesh.

Secondly, the idea that God shows respect to persons is unbiblical. Ask Peter about it in Acts 10:34.

Notice from your selected passage, that ALL of the disciples shared authority over impure spirits. This whole thing about Peter’s name being first, therefore he is supreme over all the others, is a work of the flesh and an invention by people unfamiliar with kingdom principles. If you want to show me someone great in scripture, show me the least of the brethren. Don’t read into the passage, ideas not actually there.

Blessings to you sir.

p.s. I am not a non-Catholic. I am a living stone among many all around the world.

 

[tgGodsway]

Third century, sixth century, who’s counting? … they were all far removed from the spirit of the New Testament. The idea itself was not known in the apostolic circle nor after their immediate death.

The position of Bishop from Paul’s perspective was all about an overseeing Elder, a position one can aspire to, not a “call” to be answered. This position works best in larger local bodies where oversight is needed. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to the topic of pope.

The entire “idea” (of a universal pope) and all that it implies such as his ability to decree matters into doctrine without checks and balances, yet, at the level of inspired scripture! (and thus becoming divine “revelation” century after century) is all outside of the framework and foundation of the apostolic circle. This position was not in their thinking, nor reflected in their writings. Actually it was contrary to their thinking.

Paul expounded on the five highest offices to the Church in the book of Ephesians, but no one in the RCC seem to pay any attention to it.

Remember Jesus’ warnings about building a house on a faulty foundation. The subject of Pope is said to be a foundational doctrine, but when any un bias student of scripture goes looking through the biblical record to find it, we can’t even find a simple clue that it ever existed in their world.

 

[tgGodsway]

It was Paul ALONE who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament.
It was John ALONE who climbed up on Jesus’ lap and was known as the disciple who loved Him.
It was John the Baptist ALONE who had the honor to roll out the red carpet of ministry for Jesus at His baptism.

Just because we can find something one of the disciples did without the others, doesn’t infer or imply a supremacy over the others. This is fleshly thinking. Remember, Jesus words, " the greatest in the kingdom of God is the least among the brethren."

 

[James817]

But none of those men you mentioned got the keys. Peter did.

 

[tgGodsway]

I know this metaphor is very important to you, it is to me too. It signifies Peter’s newly found authority to work the kingdom. One way to do that was to bind and lose, suggesting authority in prayer. The fact that the wording about keys is not repeated anywhere in scripture implying some kind of special or exclusive authority given only to Peter, should not be ignored, lest this passage be imposed upon with someones outside agenda. But despite this specific wording, Peter was not alone in his call to unlock the kingdom. Nor was he exclusively called to do so. Let’s not forget Jesus call to work the kingdom. “. … it is the Father’s good pleasure to give the kingdom” to his flock. That includes you and me.

 

[James817]

Not just in prayer, but in decisions like who was gonna replace Judas, or his statement on circumsion.

 

[tgGodsway]

Agreed!.. Twelve apostles was one of five highest offices given to the Church. Peter was exercising the God given authority given to him. Awesome.

 

[Crusaderbear]

a simple “Good luck with that…” should suffice. Maybe elaborate if they are buying the coffee!

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, T!

Of course my argument is way older… it comes from the Apostles and the infant Church… it comes from Jesus!

While God is not a respecter of persons, he is also not a God of confusion; hence:

11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. 15 But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ: (Ephesians 4)

The problem you have, as many others, is that you want to be the first-line of action: ‘me and Jesus.’

Hence you reject the Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Teaching and Church history–I do not blame you… it is the only way that your “authority” can be the same as the Church’s Founded by Christ to whom He Delegated His Authority or even paramount. in essence, you make yourself God’s voice–remember this is not just you but anyone who claims this “direct” connection and authority given them by God while circumventing what God has already Set as His “Community” ( ekklésia = church St. Matthew 16:18-19).

Conversely, I find many ‘living stone’ claiming the passage where Jesus’ Disciples want Jesus to refute those who were not in Fellowship with Him while using His Name as the matrix of man’s construct to exist outside of Christ’s Body and still claim Him; however, Jesus did not make a blanket statement to signify that there could exist myriads upon myriads of splintering of His Body. It is the reason why He further qualified: ‘those who do not gather with Me, scatter.’ Further, we have the event of Pentecost where the Holy Spirit does not descend upon all who were in Jerusalem at the time but upon the Apostles and those who were gathered with them (200).

God is not a God of chaos!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Do you see how you argue from all points as long as you perceive that you are correct?

First you place the idea of “Pope” on the 6th century; then you argue against a markedly earlier use of the term as inconsequential because it is not found in the mouth of the Apostles… all the while rejecting what is not found in the mouth of Jesus or the Apostles as proof that the Church is organic and she has grown from her infancy with Doctrinal Practices and Norms Unfolded by the Holy Spirit.

I liken arguments as yours as those of the ‘scholars’ and ‘theologians’ who claimed that John’s Gospel invented things till, by chance, truth was unearthed… or the ones who claim that there were no real miracles but exaggerations made to make Jesus seem more ‘Divine.’ These often put away the Divinity and argue on pure human science and abilities…

…as for the ‘unbiased student of Sacred Scripture,’ the problem with that premise is that there is bias as we cannot help but end up discovering the ‘proof’ of our preconceptions–unless we allow the Holy Spirit to truly be our Guide in Unfolding and Understand God’s Salvific Plan, which includes the Church (a Church) which is the Body of Christ:

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. (Ephesians 4)

Maran atha!

Angel