If you believe the 10 commandments “are in force” you’d better take down the statues and stop doing any work on saturday.No. The Ten Commandments remain in force, and so does the Sermon on the Mount. To disobey these, or to teach others to disobey them, is to forfeit one’s salvation.
However, they are free to make rules for us on matters relating to discipline in the Church.
Not really Saturday, but God’s seventh day - Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. And not only that, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… Thou shalt not bow down unto it…”
**Jesus came and attempted to teach certain religious people that He fulfilled the old law. And He explained to them two commandments which if they were followed would cover the “14” commandments (from the version of the commandments followed by Jewish,Catholic, and Luthern religions.) Shocker guys, they were not numbered!Like that would be different than any other day …(Just kidding, Boss!!
)
That only happend a few hundred years ago! There are also two sets read them both! Why are there 14 and why two different versions? God had a reason. The RCC knows does anyone else “without” peeking ? When catholics find this out we don’t see a problem because we don’t believe in “Solo Scriptura”. That really is a protestant thing! Makes remaining a protestant impossible I think unless you don’t mind conflicting information being told to you.
That is also why even some protestants will defend our beliefs because their version of the Truth is more closely based on our belief system.
**Hi Rob, May I know what you mean by “fulfilled the old law”? And did the 2 commandments replace the “14”, thus voiding the old law? Or do I understand you to mean that with these 2 laws, we can pick and choose which ones from the “14” it would cover (but of course, only the RCC can do the picking)?**Jesus came and attempted to teach certain religious people that He fulfilled the old law. And He explained to them two commandments which if they were followed would cover the “14” commandments (from the version of the commandments followed by Jewish,Catholic, and Luthern religions.) Shocker guys, they were not numbered!
**Mailman, You are so
“CUTE” Go play with someone else. That same question has been asked and answer several times. I even answere it once about a week weeks ago. Your memory isn’t that short neither is mine. Go read your bible~ BYE!
:doh2:**
Laura, All are welcome? Did you misunderstand what I wrote? I meant that what you were saying was “nice to hear”. I am a born again Catholic. Solo_Scriputra (His name should help yopu figure out he isn’t CatholicRather than a big debate it is more like a “getting to know you” event! He has a lot of beliefs that seem Catholic, but then he throws a loop!
**Rob, Thank you so much for clarifying. I guess I did misunderstand and thought I was interrupting a hot debate. I love it. I am not as knowledgeable on scripture as you guys are but be sure I’m going to read this entire thread to see what it’s all about. I love what I’ve read so far and it’s very interesting. I’m glad to see you’re all doing it in good fun and having a good time while sharing all the doctrines and belief’s of one another’s faith. Thanks so much for your warm welcome and I’ll be keeping an eye on this ongoing discussion.
For you Rob
Catholics (devout, practicing ones) are the elect.
WILL BE… not ARE…
we don’t have to add that… it only stands to reason that someone who truly loves Jesus will want to be a member of his Church.You would like to add “and a member of my particular church” – well, I’ll stick with Paul (and leave you guys with your illusions of grandeur).
Rob, I tried looking for the posts that you said could answer my questions but couldn’t find it, so I’m not commenting about that issue yet.**
Some things that bother me as a real practical Catholic. I would like answered:
If I were to said YES to all three of the above for you, would that make it true?
- Is a picture of your parents a graven image?
- Are art pieces in your home idols?
- If you kiss your wife to show affection to her is that worship?
If I asked you to explain why I was wrong and you did but I disregarded your responses would that make it true? No?
Then why do you do the same thing to us? This is why catholics don’t care about or sometimes can’t understand protestant arguments. They are not based on “our beliefs or practices.” They are based only on “your beliefs of our true beliefs”
**
I should not answer this because I am not a Protestant. This question assumes the RCC to be the church Jesus established. I do not believe that is so. Protestants do, and this question is rightly directed to them. However, I’ll still try to answer the question under the given assumption that the RCC was the church Jesus established.
By fulfilled does not mean that they were abrogated, but rather, they became re-oriented into the direction of Christ incarnate, Christ sacrificed, and Christ risen from the dead.
This is a matter of objective historical record; there shouldn’t really be any kind of debate on this, because all serious historians agree that the off-shoot Jewish organization established by a man in Galilee named Yeshua, who was the son of a carpenter (which is mispronounced “Jesus” by his modern day English-speaking devotees) can be traced forward to the modern age through the Catholic Church. The claim of the Pope to be the successor of St. Peter, who was a close follower of Jesus, has been proven to be objectively true. If one believes the Bible (which for whatever reason is not really included as part of the historical record), then one may say, based on various passages, including Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19, that the claim of Peter to have been head of the Early Church is true, which means that (barring any evidence that the Papacy ever moved somewhere else without later returning to Rome) that the Bishop of Rome is the current head of the Church that Christ established.
You don’t have to be a protestant to disagree with the assertion that Peter was the head of the Church. The Orthodox will take issue with that as well. The intial question “If Jesus is God, and He established His Church here on earth. and He gave that church authority over his followers. Why would He later feel a need to form other churches?” assumes what has yet to be proven: That Jesus established the papacy to rule the whole Church and that cannot be proven from Scipture or Early Church tradition.
**Maybe I should have started a new thread! But that question applies to the OP because if protestants attempt to answer that question. Really search their harden hearts, I would have to say “Tomorrow!”
**Many Fathers did not interpret Peter to be the Rock. Also Peter’s threefold affirmation of love made amends for his threefold denial. Neither of these citation is convincing to prove the claims of th emodern papacy. Roman catholics make a lot of assertions of jump to a lot of prematutre conclusions. You are one of them. The Bible doesn’t say the bishop of Rome is the infallible ruler of the whole Church. You just laboriously interpret it that way. The Fathers of the Church didn’t see it that way. The Orthodox members of CAF have very compentently debated this issue ad nauseum. So there is no need to repeat it here. Just agree to disagree.**Maybe I should have started a new thread! But that question applies to the OP because if protestants attempt to answer that question. Really search their harden hearts, I would have to say “Tomorrow!”
Varc, I will quote jmcrae , an extremely wise person:
" This is a matter of objective historical record; there shouldn’t really be any kind of debate on this, because all serious historians agree that the off-shoot Jewish organization established by a man in Galilee named Yeshua, who was the son of a carpenter (which is mispronounced “Jesus” by his modern day English-speaking devotees) can be traced forward to the modern age through the Catholic Church. The claim of the Pope to be the successor of St. Peter, who was a close follower of Jesus, has been proven to be objectively true. If one believes the Bible (which for whatever reason is not really included as part of the historical record), then one may say, based on various passages, including Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19, that the claim of Peter to have been head of the Early Church is true, which means that (barring any evidence that the Papacy ever moved somewhere else without later returning to Rome) that the Bishop of Rome is the current head of the Church that Christ established. "
To that I can only add:
**Originally Posted by Mailman
Hi Rob, May I know what you mean by “fulfilled the old law”? And did the 2 commandments replace the “14”, thus voiding the old law? Or do I understand you to mean that with these 2 laws, we can pick and choose which ones from the “14” it would cover (but of course, only the RCC can do the picking)?
**
Mailman, jmcrae, posted his answers to your questions to me. He is very wise, but he assumes that you really do want to learn. I ,on the other hand, do not believe such. His answers are correct!
If I may be so bold jmcrae, Might I comment on your responses? **
By fulfilled does not mean that they were abrogated, but rather, they became re-oriented into the direction of Christ incarnate, Christ sacrificed, and Christ risen from the dead.
So, because of Christ risen from the dead, the Sabbath now has been transformed into Resurrection Day. God is no longer resting; God, who became a man who is now risen from the dead, is once again active in the world, so instead of celebrating the day of His rest, we celebrate the day of His resurrection - not because God was dead and then came back to life, but because Jesus, God as man, rose from the dead, and in so doing, blew the locks off of the gates of Heaven (since as God, He could not go anywhere except Heaven, and in His humanity, had therefore to make it possible for His own humanity, and thus, all of humanity, to be able to go to Heaven.
**I can’t wait to see what mailman askes you from those remarks.
Circumcision became transformed into Baptism;
Can I get an “Thank God” from the guys for that decision!
the Passover became the Holy Mass, and so on and so forth.
**jmcrae, He will never let that one pass without questionsNow, I will post my answers to my buddy mailman’s questions
**
Hi Rob, May I know what you mean by “fulfilled the old law”? And did the 2 commandments replace the “14”, thus voiding the old law? Or do I understand you to mean that with these 2 laws, we can pick and choose which ones from the “14” it would cover (but of course, only the RCC can do the picking)?**
**
Hi Rob, May I know what you mean by “fulfilled the old law **
**
Mailman, mailman, mailman, did not Jesus say? " For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"**.Matthew 15:4
** And did the 2 commandments replace the “14”, thus voiding the old law?**
Replace? You are really funny,You ask that like you sincerely believe that I think that! HAHAHAHA!:extrahappy: Short answer -NO!
What I meant and that is believed is that by “obeying the gretest commandments” you automatically obey all of the 10 Commandments. But, of course you already knew that! God Bless****All in all, a very “nice” post!
Many Fathers did not interpret Peter to be the Rock.
SO??
Also Peter’s threefold affirmation of love made amends for his threefold denial. Neither of these citation is convincing to prove the claims of the modern papacy.
To whom?
Roman catholics make a lot of assertions of jump to a lot of prematutre conclusions. You are one of them.
Oh, I understand kind of like the solo scriptura thing the protestants do? But we have both ral tradition dating back 2000 years and historical documentation to back up our claims. Which by the way, “only” we have to believe!l
The Bible doesn’t say the bishop of Rome is the infallible ruler of the whole Church.
**Who actually cares? There is a lot the bible doesn’t say! **
You just laboriously interpret it that way. The Fathers of the Church didn’t see it that way.
Actually they did! Prove that your statement is accurate and not just your opinion, please!
The Orthodox members of CAF have very compentently debated this issue ad nauseum.
**They "broke away "from the “true Church” 900 years after it was founded. They have "true apolstic succession, however they are wrong! Would you expect a divorced spouse to support their ex-spouse’s claim to their joint property? **
So there is no need to repeat it here. Just agree to disagree.
B]That my friend sounds like an excellent idea. I just hope it doesn’t forfeit your eternal soul. I will pray for you!
God Bless
