M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Not what I said!
And you know it!
- Status
And you know it!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Really? What of Paul?
D
djrakowski
Guest
With all of these self-proclaimed imperfections, how can you be sure that you’ve come to a proper understanding of truth? And if your understanding is based upon all these sources you consider imperfect, then why should anyone listen to your truth claims? After all, you can’t even be sure you’ve come to a proper understanding with such flawed tools at your disposal
D
djrakowski
Guest
Yes, what of Paul? Jesus didn’t promise to build a church with Paul in charge - that commission was given exclusively to Peter.
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually Revmarty you are the one that is limited -you look upon Scripture as a mystical puzzle book-all the answers are there-we just nead to study it (with the help of the Spirit, you will say) and the truth will be revealed to us.
There are two huge problems with this .One is that it is not supported even by Scripture its self. The other is that it leads to multiple version of the truth.
Just look at this thread-you claim it is OK to call another man Father-myfavoritemartin toi say so it is blaspemy. Both of you adhere to Sola Scriptura, both of you claims the Sprit guides you but you both come to diametrically opposed opinions about what Scripture means. How do we resolve this , revmarty?
Since you have told me I have not given you the depth you expected(something that affilcts you also-so far your posts has been the usual repetiotn of anit-catholic talking points with nothng other than you "opinion to back them uo(see above)
You told me the Eucharist is merely Symbolic. Well let look at that using first the severley limited way those who adhere to Sola Scriptura dare.
Here is what Jesus Says:
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven
John 6:53
Now note that this is in respones to grumblngs to his followers.
He had just told them he is the Bread of Life . John 6:53 is where he clarifeis what he means. Note he does not take the opportunity to tell them he is speaking symbolically-in fact he becomes evenmore explicit.
Now we know that when Jesus was speaking symbolically he took pains to make that clear to his followers.
25"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. John 16:25
And we also know that thoes who heard him took him quite literally:
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Now lets move on to the Last Supper:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the*(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=31#fen-NIV-24080b”)] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom." *
Note he does not say “this is a symbol of my body”.
E
estesbob
Guest
Now for those limited by Sola Scriptura we have gone as far as we can go. The usual procedure is for you to come back and dispute my personal interpertations of these verses, give me you personal interperation , backed up, in you mind, by even more Scripture verses pulled from(and often out of context) other areas of Scripture;
Since I am not arrogant enough to beleive I have the ability to interpet Scipture for you or anyone esle i look at what the consensus of the Early Church was about the Eucharist. Heres what out Church Fathers said:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible”
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2). ( Iraneus -*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (Clement of Alexandria*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" ( Origen *Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Note that in none of the ababove (and I can give you a lot more) even hint that the Eucharist is symbolic.
And lastly we look at tradition. The simple fact is that for the first 1,500 years after the Death of Christ the Eucharist and the belief it was the physical body and blood of Christ was central to the worship of all Christians and was conducted in the only Chrisitan Church that existed-The Catholic Church. The idea that the Eucahrist is the physcial body and blood of Christ ist supported by Scriture, was beleived by those who lived closest to the time Jesus Walked the Earth and was the common belief for 1,500 years.
Given all this why chould any of us believe a rejection of this based on nothing more than your personal interperation of Scripture?*
Since I am not arrogant enough to beleive I have the ability to interpet Scipture for you or anyone esle i look at what the consensus of the Early Church was about the Eucharist. Heres what out Church Fathers said:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible”
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2). ( Iraneus -*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (Clement of Alexandria*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" ( Origen *Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Note that in none of the ababove (and I can give you a lot more) even hint that the Eucharist is symbolic.
And lastly we look at tradition. The simple fact is that for the first 1,500 years after the Death of Christ the Eucharist and the belief it was the physical body and blood of Christ was central to the worship of all Christians and was conducted in the only Chrisitan Church that existed-The Catholic Church. The idea that the Eucahrist is the physcial body and blood of Christ ist supported by Scriture, was beleived by those who lived closest to the time Jesus Walked the Earth and was the common belief for 1,500 years.
Given all this why chould any of us believe a rejection of this based on nothing more than your personal interperation of Scripture?*
E
estesbob
Guest
So why do you and revmarty come to diametrically opposed conclusions about “call no man Father”. How do we reconcile that.
Note that 1.4 billion Catholics are in agreement on what this verse means.-not becuase we are perfect but becuase in matters of Faith and Moral our Church is.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I don’t know! Maybe he is like you guys not taking Christ word at face value in this case.
What does quantity mean, ya know the path my friend is very narrow.
D
djrakowski
Guest
Or perhaps there’s another answer - he (like us) is considering the entire context of the New Testament when addressing this issue. With your reliance upon imperfect sources, as you admitted above, how can you be so sure that yours is the correct interpretation?
I think I’m safe in assuming that my brother ‘estesbob’ didn’t mean to imply that all of those 1.4 billion are faithful Christians, so I’m not quite sure what you meant by this statement - please clarify.
E
estesbob
Guest
So we should ignore 2,000 years of teachings, the witness of numeroous other adherents to Sola Scriptura and accert your personal interpertaion? Why?
M
mercygate
Guest
Paul did not begin his ministry until he had received the laying on of hands from Ananias, a trusted disciple at Damascus, who had received a personal vision from Christ that Paul was to be received. It was only upon Ananias’ laying hands upon him that Paul received both his sight and the Holy Spirit (Acts 9).
Then, in order to carry on, Paul was vouched for in Jerusalem by Barnabas, a disciple trusted by the church in Jerusalem:
Acts 9:27 ff: But Barnabas took him [Paul], and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
When Paul began his first missionary journey with Barnabas, he was sent by the laying on of hands at the Church in Antioch
(Acts 13): While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
Paul does not freelance. He is in the bosom of the apostolic Church from the moment of his conversion.
G
guanophore
Guest
That is only partly true. Although our modern English (and even Greek, which I prefer) versions of the Bible are not considered inspired, since they are not the original, we each have imperfect discernment, and imperfect history which is indeed limiting. However, the Sacred Tradition has the same promise of the Sacred written word, that it is infallible.
2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
The Sacred Teachings of the Apostles,whether oral or written, are infallible, and are two threads of the same Divine Deposit of Faith.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Can you cite me any Traditions that are not recorded in scripture, but have been considered the “word of God” since the apostles… and give some proof as such?
M
mercygate
Guest
Infant baptism (which is intimated in Scripture).
catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Luke18:
15
3 4 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.
16
Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
I SEE NO intimation of baptism here! can you spell it out?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
And I said NOT recorded in scripture…
C
clmowry
Guest
All of the Apostolic Traditions are contained at least implicitly in scriputre.
Inant baptism IS an example of a tradition that is not Explicitly spelled out in scripture.
I believe this is what you asked for, no?
Chuck
Inant baptism IS an example of a tradition that is not Explicitly spelled out in scripture.
I believe this is what you asked for, no?
Chuck
G
guanophore
Guest
No. Matters of faith are, by definition, unable to be “proven”. We accept the truth of the Bible because it was declared to be infallible by the Church. However, we cannot “prove” the contents of much of it. Can we “prove” that Jesus ascended to heaven? Can we “prove” there is a trinity? Not really.
One of the Traditions that is not recorded in scripture is that the Bishop of Rome is considered “first among equals”. He goes by the title “servant of the servants of God”, because he has the charism passed on to the person occupying the seat of Peter. This charism, given to Peter by Jesus, is to strengthen the brethren, and feed the sheep. The successor of Peter is also the keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom.
Of course, just like anything involving matters of faith, these truths cannot be “proven” to you.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, mfm. You asked for an example of Sacred Tradition THAT WAS NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE and that is what you got. For Catholics and Orthodox, this is where we see the inimation of baptism for infants. As I said, it cannot be “proven” to you. This is part of the Sacred Tradtion that has been handed down from the beginning. If you want to continue this idea, then it should be done in another thread, since it is off topic here.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Yeah, good point!
- Status