How do Catholics explain 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SIA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was only one Church. It didn’t splinter until the know better protestants. Those local bishops all acknowledged the Pope.

Polycarp of Smyrna (c 69- ca. 155)
During the life time of Polycarp these were the Popes
Pope Linus (67-76)
Pope Clement (88-97)
Pope Alexander I (105-115)
Pope Sixtus I
PopeTelesphorus (125-136)
Pope Hyginus (136-140)
Pope Pius I (140-155)
These men are considered Popes today – but the church at Rome did not have central governing authority during this early period. These men were bishops of Rome.
Pope Clement I your comment is weird since he was a pope who was ordained by Peter.
Can you cite authority for this claim? To my knowledge even Clement himself never claimed this. The only one known to be consecrated by Peter was Ignatius.
Ignatius of Antioch born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.
Pope Peter (32-67)
Pope Linus (67-76)
Pope Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
Pope Clement I (88-97)
Pope Evaristus (97-105)
Pope Alexander I (105-115)
Pope Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
What significance does this offer? He was the bishop of Antioch (not Rome) and was consecrated bishop not pope?
 
I have never heard a claim that the legs were broken so they couldn’t run away.
Crucifixion was not only an execution but it was meant to torture as well. The only reason that the legs were broken was to hasten death. The victim could no longer lift himself to get air. Normally the Romans didn’t even remove the body they let the birds take care of the corpse. With the legs broken the thieves crucified with Jesus would have died that day. The interpretation you try to apply really makes no sense. What scholars have this as a translation?
Study Roman culture, if they didn’t break the legs to hasten the death. A spear thrust would hasten a death. Fact is Their legs were broken because they were still alive, and sometimes crucifixions lasted for days. Jesus died in 3 hours.

They broke their legs and took em down from the crosses because the sun was setting. If they were taken down, then they didn’t die of asphyxiation. Its roman history.

Jesus died that day, they didn’t.
 
I said on the previous post the thieves on the cross were brought down from it because of the sunset. I actualy meant the Passover, not the sunset, but the passover.
The idea that their legs were broken to hurry their death, is a theory relatively new, again just a theory. However, even though crosses did cause asfixiation, but according to historical facts it could last several days, they could even die of bleeding or dehydration. Dehydration doesnt happen in one day.

Anyone can prove me wrong, and its ok, like someone said not long ago, let’s stick to the topic.

Though we pray and intercede for others, Jesus said to pray to the Father only, not to anyone or through anyone. If people wanna pray to God for you, great but Jesus commanded us to pray directly to the Father in His name, no one else.
 
It is correct to say that everything that Catholics believe about Mary is not included in the scripture, but I have not found that anything about the Catholic belief is contrary to scripture.

If I could hear how someone comes to the conclusion that the bible makes Catholic belief unchristian or impossible then I think we would have the basis for a good debate. God said many things that are not written in the bible, and the bible DOES say that.

The Chancellor
First off, Catholics proclaim Mary to be many things that the Bible does not speak of at all. It is a matter of the Catholic church (not Scripture) that calls Mary without original sin, without actual sin during her life and assumed into Heaven body and spirit and a perpetual virgin. I invite you or any Catholic here that can show me in my Bible or yours where Mary is any one of these things. as far as the things that happened apart from Scripture, of course there are. One would have to be stupid to believe that Scripture contains everything. here’s the catch, what are those things and how do we prove their origin and existence and why does it matter?
 
Enoch’s life was written about in Genesis. Mary’s life is not discussed in Scripture, save when her life and Jesus’ intertwine. This does not happen after Jesus ascends to Heaven, so why would we assume the bible to tell us of Mary’s assumption?
Your absolutely right, it doesn’t and that’s my point. How do you prove that it happened then?
 
First off, Catholics proclaim Mary to be many things that the Bible does not speak of at all. It is a matter of the Catholic church (not Scripture) that calls Mary without original sin, without actual sin during her life and assumed into Heaven body and spirit and a perpetual virgin. I invite you or any Catholic here that can show me in my Bible or yours where Mary is any one of these things. as far as the things that happened apart from Scripture, of course there are. One would have to be stupid to believe that Scripture contains everything. here’s the catch, what are those things and how do we prove their origin and existence and why does it matter?
Short answer:
Tradition

Didn’t you just contradict yourself here?

Asking us to show where something is in Scripture and then admitting that not everything is in Scripture?

This is such a trite rebuttal, but where does Scripture say that it is the ONLY place we should go to for faith matters? I know it says that it is useful…but not for ALL things.
 
Short answer:
Tradition

Didn’t you just contradict yourself here?

Asking us to show where something is in Scripture and then admitting that not everything is in Scripture?

This is such a trite rebuttal, but where does Scripture say that it is the ONLY place we should go to for faith matters? I know it says that it is useful…but not for ALL things.
You are dodging the point here. Where do you prove the things not contained in Scripture? Tradition must adhere to and parallel Scripture in which in the case of Catholicism it does not.
 
You are dodging the point here. Where do you prove the things not contained in Scripture? Tradition must adhere to and parallel Scripture in which in the case of Catholicism it does not.
Not really a real question:
How do you prove the things contained in Scripture?
(I just felt like putting that…felt compelled.)

Whatever said Tradition MUST adhere and parallel Scripture?
Does Scripture say this?
 
Not really a real question:
How do you prove the things contained in Scripture?
(I just felt like putting that…felt compelled.)

Whatever said Tradition MUST adhere and parallel Scripture?
Does Scripture say this?
No, but I believe our friend here is saying that the Word of God has God backing its authority, where as tradition has man backing that authority.
And if I have to stand behind man or God for authority, I would stand behind God. Not traditions of men, like the Jews were doing when Jesus denounced them “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition”
 
No, but I believe our friend here is saying that the Word of God has God backing its authority, where as tradition has man backing that authority.
And if I have to stand behind man or God for authority, I would stand behind God. Not traditions of men, like the Jews were doing when Jesus denounced them “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition”
Well put.
 
And how do you justify Mary queen of Heaven by the Scriptures? And, prove to me how Mary plays any role whatsoever in our Salvation?
Are you kidding me? It was from Mary that Christ drew his flesh,. the flesh he sacrificed on the cross. It was because Mary cooperated with God that Christ became incarnate and our salvation became possible. The early Christians recoginized this and refered to her as the “New Eve”. Christ literally came to us through Mary! That is why even Anne in the Bible proclaims the greatness of Mary, stating, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
 
Are you kidding me? It was from Mary that Christ drew his flesh,. the flesh he sacrificed on the cross. It was because Mary cooperated with God that Christ became incarnate and our salvation became possible. The early Christians recoginized this and refered to her as the “New Eve”. Christ literally came to us through Mary! That is why even Anne in the Bible proclaims the greatness of Mary, stating, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
So? Did Mary give Jesus his divinity? By what you proclaim in your post here, I think that you do believe Mary played some part in Jesus’ divinity.
 
Is it your position then that they do not have to?
Not necessarily…
History can attest to Tradition.
I guess I was trying to make my point in a bad way.

YOU told me that Tradition MUST adhere and parallel to Scripture.
I was asking what tells YOU this.

What I am trying to understand is why people believe Scripture is the ultimate authority. Scripture tells us that everything in it is useful, certainly…Scripture does not tell us that it tells us everything.
 
So? Did Mary give Jesus his divinity? By what you proclaim in your post here, I think that you do believe Mary played some part in Jesus’ divinity.
I guess you didn’t read my post then. I specifically said that Mary gave christ his flesh. Not once did i say she gave him his divinity. You might wanna go back and re-read it. When you react like this you make protestantism look… well… silly and that is unfortunate because I have some very dear friends who are protestants.
 
Jesus died that day, they didn’t.
The prior is uncontested. The latter is your own speculative assertion offered without evidence.

Its apparent that you seem to be OK with going extra-biblical to draw on tradition and history to speculate and form your own personal dogmas but when the Catholic Church or the Pope develops a dogma that is not explicitly mentioned in the bible you would disallow it? 😉

James
 
No, but I believe our friend here is saying that the Word of God has God backing its authority, where as tradition has man backing that authority.
And if I have to stand behind man or God for authority, I would stand behind God. Not traditions of men, like the Jews were doing when Jesus denounced them “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition”
“Hold fast to the traditions that were handed on to you either in writing or by word of mouth.” -St. Paul
 
Study Roman culture, if they didn’t break the legs to hasten the death. A spear thrust would hasten a death. Fact is Their legs were broken because they were still alive, and sometimes crucifixions lasted for days. Jesus died in 3 hours.

They broke their legs and took em down from the crosses because the sun was setting. If they were taken down, then they didn’t die of asphyxiation. Its roman history.

Jesus died that day, they didn’t.
I have studied Roman culture. I am not certain about your first sentence and what you intended to write. They only were taken down after they were dead. The Jews wanted them down before sunset which meant they had to be dead. That is Roman History.
If you contend otherwise please give a source. I have many source that say this. A History of Christendom by Warren H. Carroll or any encyclopedia will give you the same information. There is even a book that has the medical aspects of a crucifixion. The Romans were very practiced and the one thing that was sure is that their victims were dead before they were brought down. The act of breaking the legs was called crurifragium. A spear would be thrust into the side to make sure of death. There is no doubt that the two crucified with Jesus died the same day as Jesus. Without their legs to raise them to breath they wouldn’t have lasted an hour. That is medical fact.
 
I have studied Roman culture. I am not certain about your first sentence and what you intended to write. They only were taken down after they were dead. The Jews wanted them down before sunset which meant they had to be dead. That is Roman History.
If you contend otherwise please give a source. I have many source that say this. A History of Christendom by Warren H. Carroll or any encyclopedia will give you the same information. There is even a book that has the medical aspects of a crucifixion. The Romans were very practiced and the one thing that was sure is that their victims were dead before they were brought down. The act of breaking the legs was called crurifragium. A spear would be thrust into the side to make sure of death. There is no doubt that the two crucified with Jesus died the same day as Jesus. Without their legs to raise them to breath they wouldn’t have lasted an hour. That is medical fact.
We could spend a lot of time exchanging historical data, and I’ll try to stick to the Word of God, just for this space’s sake.

The thief in the cross could not have gone to paradise with Jesus that day, and lets assume that he died (though the scriptures don’t say that)
But I’ll assume he died, since you already believe it as a fact. Jesus himself did not go to paradise that day, he just went to hell (which literally translated is sheol, or tomb, or grave to describe the state of the dead), and his going to paradise did not happen till Sunday, on the day that he resurrected.

Jesus himself, speaking right after his resurrection, said he had not gone to His Father yet.

John 20:16-17 “Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.”

Here Jesus himself said that he had not yet ascended to his Father. This is after he resurrected. So Jesus himself did not go to paradise the day he died, unless you consider the grave paradise, and if you do, why would he tell Mary he had not yet gone to his Father?

Jesus allowed his disciples to touch him after he had presented himself to his Father by going to heaven.

John 20:27 “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.”

The Scripture then is obvious, the statement to the thief on the cross is a typo of translation when you look at the scriptures in the right context. If we read it in the original context of the language,

Jesus said “Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (future reference)

With this in mind, we can clearly see that after Jesus died he did not go to paradise till after he resurrected on Sunday, somewhere between the time he saw Mary and the time he saw the Apostles. And he did not lie to the thief on the cross either. The simple fact is that according to Jesus’ own words is that he had not gone to paradise that day. The thief simply died in Christ and its awaiting his second coming in the dust of the earth just like all the saints that will resurrect in that great day (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
 
I guess you didn’t read my post then. I specifically said that Mary gave christ his flesh. Not once did i say she gave him his divinity. You might wanna go back and re-read it. When you react like this you make protestantism look… well… silly and that is unfortunate because I have some very dear friends who are protestants.
Please… You are the one throwing around all of these things that Mary supposedly is which are not found in Scripture. I merely was asking you with your turbocharged idea of who Mary was or what she was if you thought that she gave Jesus his divinity because based upon how you seem to view her, I believe deep down inside that you do believe somehow she added divinity or was instrumental in some way.

As far as Protestants go, it is many here that misunderstand them and in many cases don’t even bother to find out what some denominations really believe. You just throw them into the Protestant box. It amazes me the things said here about Protestants in general. Very silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top