I just must ask

[rev_kevin]

The Catholic Church agrees with you Rev. That is the exception not the rule
The Church is Christ therefore there must be a witness to the marriage by a priest or deacon. Christ gave the sacrament of marriage to the Church and the Church with the authority to bind and loose has decided it will accept marriages with a Protestant pastor as a witness. If you are Catholic, however, you are bound by the rules of the Church and you must have a priest or deacon as your witness.
No, The witness must be from the Church or someone who the Church has given the authority to witness such as a Protestant pastor (in the case of non-Catholics)

THe Church must witness to what God has joined together. That is part of Sacred Tradition.

If you are a valid minister then yes. If one of those being married is a Catholic then no. There must be a representative of the Church there also or you must get permission from the Bishop to do otherwise. It all goes back to Jesus giving His Church the authority when He said to His Church “whatever YOU (Peter, James, John etc) bind on earth is bound in heaven”

No. The Catholic Church is the body of Christ, she and she alone is Christ who established only ONE Church and He can only have ONE body. If you are baptized you are in the body of Christ and part of HIs ONE Church. The Baptist, Methodist etc denominations are NOT the Church. It’s members are part of the body of Christ but the denomination itself is man-made and therefore not the Church. Jesus can have only one bride or He would be an adulterer.

Ok I got what your saying. Thanks

 

[BILL_PICK53]

Well, speaking just for the Protestant I was, maybe am, and those I’ve known … we DON’T take the Bible literally at every juncture. We draw the line at different places, sure, but just for example, we don’t literally believe:

• That God has “wings”
• That He is actually employed as a shepherd
• That His “rest” on the seventh day was comparable to our understanding of the word or its Hebrew equivalent
• That seeming cruces in Scripture don’t call for thought & discrimination

Protestants tend to think that the Third Person of the Trinity was sent to guide the Bible-reading believers who comprise the universal church directly, and their chosen pastors and teachers to boot (though not without interference, confusion, & disagreement in some individual cases); Catholics, that the temporal Catholic Church is the rightful mediator of this charism.

I’m sure that our Catholic brothers will kindly rush to point out all the holes they see in such a Protestant hermeneutic, but the point is, I don’t think one could fairly call it “literalist,” except when compared with its Catholic counterpart.

Is this why we have over 32,0000 non-cathloic den.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
First with the image on the pole. It was God who expressly told Moses to make this image.

Seems you just contradicted yourself when you said this

"That’s just it. I don’t believe Christ would teach us to violate one of His commandments."

Not at all. God did not tell the Israelites to bow down to the image on the pole. He did not tell them to worship it.

Ex.20: 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Jesus did not give His disciples a piece of bread and say bow down to this because this is me.

I also wish to ask if you have a graven image of the Cross carved on your Bible.

The commandment does not prohibit images, Only to bow down to them.

They were instructed to gaze upon it however showing us that using an image to assist you in venerating is acceptable. The act of bowing down was only if done in worshiping a graven image. They are interconnected. If you wish to separate them, then bowing down to all forms would have to go.

This is exactly what the commandment is saying. The Catholic practice of bowing down to images is prohibited by the second commandment.

Your faith comes from a Church not even 200 years old.

My faith comes from God.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Where does your faith come from?

Your study comes from how you wish to perceive it. Your ‘My only source for the truth is the Word of God’ line is said by all protestants yet your SDA church is viewed by many of your protestant brethren as a cult.

This is not true

Hmmmm, but both sides insist your truths come from the Word of God so I guess everybody’s right.

Both sides of what?

In reality, the only thing that comes about from Scripture alone is utter chaos.

This is truely an astounding statement.
Jesus said:
Jn.17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
So according to you the sanctification that comes from the word of God is “utter chaos”

Jn.5:John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
So according to you, the testimony of Jesus found in scripture and the eternal life that He provides us are “utter chaos”

I think that I will seek that “utter chaos”

 

[Danny_Clover]

Why do non-catholic take almost all the Bible LITERALLY, but will when it comes too John chapter 6 they say it is a Symbol or figurative and the Bible does not say it is,WHY

We do take it literally. The problem is that you’re not taking into account that there are principles in hermeneutics that tell us that tell us that literally and hyper-literally (that is, a wooden understanding with no accounting for nuance, intent, or context) are two vastly different thing.

Literal Bible interpretation means you understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Many make the mistake of trying to read between the lines and come up with meanings for Scriptures that are not truly in the text. Yes, of course, there are some spiritual truths behind the plain meanings of Scripture. That does not mean that every Scripture has a hidden spiritual truth, or that it should be our goal to find all such spiritual truths. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and away from allegorizing and symbolizing Bible verses and passages that should be understood literally.

A second crucial principle of biblical hermeneutics is that a verse or passage must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Historical interpretation refers to understanding the culture, background, and situation which prompted the text. Grammatical interpretation is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage. Contextual interpretation involves always taking the surrounding context of a verse/passage into consideration when trying to determine the meaning.

By your own logic, Catholics, themselves, do not take John 6 literally, because when Jesus told them to eat His flesh, He didn’t give them a piece of flesh, but a piece of bread. It is the Catholic Church that had to insert the part about the bread magically becoming flesh, thus, not taking the passage literally.

 

[Des]

Not at all. God did not tell the Israelites to bow down to the image on the pole. He did not tell them to worship it.

I never said He did. You seemed to mention it so I thought I’d elaborate further. When the commandment of bowing was given, it was connected to worshiping. Anytime someone bows doesn’t have to mean in worship. So they could have bowed and God wouldn’t have cared less so long as it wasn’t done in worship. That’s the heart of the matter. If the image is worshiped or not.

Jesus did not give His disciples a piece of bread and say bow down to this because this is me.

You’re right, he didn’t give us bread. He did better than that. He gave us His precious Body and Blood.

The commandment does not prohibit images, Only to bow down to them.

Commandment number 2 says not to make them, then it says not to bow to them. It doesn’t say not to make and bow in one sentence.

But lets do it your way. Since you’re now saying God didn’t prohibit the carving of images alone, you then have no problem if Catholics venerated through our images so long as we never bowed to them correct? I’ll be surprised if you say yes here.

This is exactly what the commandment is saying. The Catholic practice of bowing down to images is prohibited by the second commandment.

No Richard. It’s what you’re saying. The commandment to me is saying first off not to worship other Gods, then not to carve and bow to them. It has to do with worship and not veneration. That’s the focal point. But years of your anti Catholic bias won’t allow you to see that part.
Christ simplified the Commandments down to Worship and love. Carving and bowing down in front of images does not break this so long as your focus is on His truth of Worshiping God only and loving Him with all your mind, heart and soul. So long as this remains unbroken the commandments remain intact.

When Moses had the snake on the rod, do you seriously believe they at first didn’t feel God’s healing powers working through their venerating of this image? It’s only when they separated that part when it became idolatry and was prohibited.

My faith comes from God.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Where does your faith come from?

When I said faith, I meant your entire expression through your doctrines. It is those that come from your less than 200 year old Church.

Both sides of what?

You and your protestant brethren’s belief.

This is truely an astounding statement.
Jesus said:
Jn.17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
So according to you the sanctification that comes from the word of God is “utter chaos”

The Word is Christ and not mere writings that can be distorted.

So according to you, the testimony of Jesus found in scripture and the eternal life that He provides us are “utter chaos”

I think that I will seek that “utter chaos”

lol don’t twist my words. Sola Scripture brings about chaos, not the truths that’s contained within them. But go ahead Richard. Keep insisting it’s only you and your Adventist family that have this intimate connection with the Holy Spirit where you’re perfectly being nourished by the Written Word. But hey, if any other protestant disagrees with them, they had better pray a little harder huh.

 

[greggy53]

…By your own logic, Catholics, themselves, do not take John 6 literally, because when Jesus told them to eat His flesh, He didn’t give them a piece of flesh, but a piece of bread. It is the Catholic Church that had to insert the part about the bread magically becoming flesh, thus, not taking the passage literally.

John 6, 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me

We Catholics do take Jesus at his word where others say he is speaking metaphorically. From what I have seen from Protestant evangelicals is that they consistently contrive a literal interpretation when a metaphorical one is obvious. Case in point. I ran into a protestant on the forum who believes that people literally walk around Heaven with crowns on their heads because the scriptures speak of “crowns of righteousness” and yet he believes that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said “Verily, verily I tell you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood the life is not in you.”
Even though Jesus starts this sentence with "Truthfully, truthfully I tell you… The Protestant would have us believe that he didn’t really mean it. We take our Lord at his word as he spoke directly and emphatically in John 6.

 

[Danny_Clover]

no text…what’s the point in feeding another troll

 

[greggy53]

no text…what’s the point in feeding another troll

That’s it? no rebuttal?..Just start the name calling and move on I guess. That’s OK my friend I’ve been called worse by better men than you

 

[Third_Day]

=Danny Clover;6673772]We do take it literally. The problem is that you’re not taking into **account that there are principles in hermeneutics **that tell us that tell us that literally and hyper-literally (that is, a wooden understanding with no accounting for nuance, intent, or context) are two vastly different thing.

Danny you don’t take John 6 literally. You violate the principles in hermeneutics when you interpret John 6

Literal Bible interpretation means you understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning

.
And Jesus is very plain in His meaning. That is why his disciples walk away.

The Bible says what it means and means what it says

. John 6 and the Last Supper accounts means what it says.

Many make the mistake of trying to read between the lines and come up with meanings for Scriptures that are not truly in the text.

That’s exactly what you are doing in John 6 and with “this is my body”.

Biblical hermeneutics keeps **us faithful to the intended meaning **of Scripture and away from allegorizing and symbolizing Bible verses and passages that should be understood literally.

Who would better know the “intended” meaning then those that were there? And what did they say? “How can this man give us his flesh to eat…this is a hard saying who can listen to it”

A second crucial principle of biblical hermeneutics is that a verse or passage must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Historical interpretation refers to understanding the culture, background, and situation which prompted the text.

Exaclty and the eye-witnesses took it from a historical, grammatically and contextual meaning and they walked away.

Grammatical interpretation is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage

.Go to **the Greek in verse 52- “ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “ How can this man give us his flesh to eat? “.
In Greek the word used here for “eat “ is phago which means to consume, to devour.
Verse 53: “ Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man….
Again the Greek word used here is phago, to **consume, to devour. **
Now the Apostle John makes a change Verse 54 “ he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life….The Greek word used here for eat is trogo which means **to crunch, to gnaw. **Verse 56 “ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”
Again the Greek word used is trogo which means to crunch, to gnaw. Why did the Apostle John use a different word for “eat?” John is telling us that Jesus was speaking of a literal eating of the flesh of Christ.
That miracle would be revealed to the apostles at the last Supper when Jesus, a priest in the manner of Melchizedek who offered bread and wine, changes bread and wine into His body and blood.

By your own logic, Catholics, themselves, do not take John 6 literally, because when Jesus told them to eat His flesh, He didn’t give them a piece of flesh, but a piece of bread. It is the Catholic Church that had to insert the part about the bread magically becoming flesh, thus, not taking the passage literally

John 6 and the Last Supper are speaking of the same thing, the Eucharist. where the substance of His body, blood, soul and divinitey are present.

 

[Church_Militant]

Great answer but can you give me the chapter and verse that will say we are to take one verse as a Symbol and another as leterally,Thank You

Sure Bill, right after you show me the Bible verses that tell us that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Bible.

I think St. Paul’s Eucharistic remarks in 1st Corinthians 11:27-30 is sufficient to show that he was Catholic in his beliefs. Why so many n-Cs who are so into his writings fail to see that is beyond me. Like I said before, The Eucharist IS Scriptural.

 

[adrift]

You don’t understand Catholic teaching. For example the site you showed me says this:
.

What was interesting about the site is not what they posted but what they chose to leave out. They edited the answer from Fr. Levis

The priest can be said to stand it for Jesus at Mass and when conferring the other Sacraments. He remains himself, Fr. John, or Fr. Peter, but Christ acts Himself thru the priest, and without fail. The priest never loses his personal identity but the HOly Orders is that Sacrament that renders the priest the special dispenser of Christ’s grace and merit. Even a sinful priest works effectively and Christ’s grace never fails to be given to the faithful thru him. God bless.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I never said He did. You seemed to mention it so I thought I’d elaborate further. When the commandment of bowing was given, it was connected to worshiping. Anytime someone bows doesn’t have to mean in worship. So they could have bowed and God wouldn’t have cared less so long as it wasn’t done in worship. That’s the heart of the matter. If the image is worshiped or not.

Ok, first of all I mentioned the snake on the pole because Third Day brought it up
Here’s the exchange between you and me.

I said

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
First with the image on the pole. It was God who expressly told Moses to make this image.

You said

Seems you just contradicted yourself when you said this.

This is in reference to my first statement and this one

“That’s just it. I don’t believe Christ would teach us to violate one of His commandments.”

This is a clear indication that you did believe that the snake on the pole was a call by God to violate the commandment.

To which I responded.

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Not at all. God did not tell the Israelites to bow down to the image on the pole. He did not tell them to worship it.

To which you responded above

I never said He did.

Well, the way I see it that’s exactly what you said.

You’re right, he didn’t give us bread. He did better than that. He gave us His precious Body and Blood.

He gave us His body and blood on the cross.

Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Commandment number 2 says not to make them, then it says not to bow to them. It doesn’t say not to make and bow in one sentence.

Wow, you making this stuff up as you go along? Let’s look at both the first and second commandment.

Ex.20:2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Vs. 2&3 are the first commandment. I’m sure you will agree that v. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. means that we should not worship false gods.

Vs.4,5&6 are the second. There are two admonishments. We are not to bow down before them or worship them. We are not to do either one.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

But lets do it your way. Since you’re now saying God didn’t prohibit the carving of images alone, you then have no problem if Catholics venerated through our images so long as we never bowed to them correct? I’ll be surprised if you say yes here.

What do you mean do it my way? The problem with this question is that you do bow down to them. Not only statues and pictures, but this piece of bread that you call God.

No Richard. It’s what you’re saying. The commandment to me is saying first off not to worship other Gods, then not to carve and bow to them. It has to do with worship and not veneration. That’s the focal point. But years of your anti Catholic bias won’t allow you to see that part.
Christ simplified the Commandments down to Worship and love. Carving and bowing down in front of images does not break this so long as your focus is on His truth of Worshiping God only and loving Him with all your mind, heart and soul.

Read the commandment for yourself Des. Ex20:5 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: Actually two commandments in this one. We are not to bow down to graven images no matter what they are and we are not to serve them. That’s pretty clear Des.

So long as this remains unbroken the commandments remain intact.

The commandments remain intact whether we keep them or not.

When Moses had the snake on the rod, do you seriously believe they at first didn’t feel God’s healing powers working through their venerating of this image? It’s only when they separated that part when it became idolatry and was prohibited.

Neither Moses nor God told the Israelites to venerate anything, except God.

When I said faith, I meant your entire expression through your doctrines. It is those that come from your less than 200 year old Church.

My doctrine comes from the bible. The Word of God. which is approximately 6,000 years old.

You and your protestant brethren’s belief.

Both sides of me and my Protestant brethren’s belief? What in the world does that mean?

The Word is Christ and not mere writings that can be distorted.
lol don’t twist my words.

In reality, the only thing that comes about from Scripture alone is utter chaos.

How did I twist these words Des?

Sola Scripture brings about chaos, not the truths that’s contained within them.

Maybe you should think before you make a statement. How about that Des? For instance, You say “Sola Scripture brings about chaos, not the truths that’s contained within them.” Now Sola Scriptura means the bible alone or scripture alone. So what you are saying here is that Scripture alone brings about chaos, not the truths contained within the scriptures. Kind of a contradiction isn’t it?

But go ahead Richard. Keep insisting it’s only you and your Adventist family that have this intimate connection with the Holy Spirit where you’re perfectly being nourished by the Written Word. But hey, if any other protestant disagrees with them, they had better pray a little harder huh.

Des I have never said that me or my Adventist family had an intimate connection with the Holy Spirit altho I believe that that is true. And I do believe that we are perfectly nourished by the Word of God and if by them you mean scriptures? If they disagree with them. Ya, they need to pray harder. They need to not disagree with them because they are the Word of God.

 

[adrift]

.

.

Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

You make this comment why?

Wow you making this stuff up as you go along?

ad hominem attacks do not add but detrack from your statements. What purpose did this statement serve?

Let’s look at both the first and second commandment.

Where are they numbered?

Ex.20:2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Vs. 2&3 are the first commandment. I’m sure you will agree that v. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. means that we should not worship false gods.

Vs.4,5&6 are the second. There are two admonishments. We are not to bow down before them or worship them. We are not to do either one.

They are not seperate. They relate to not having false gods not that images themself are wrong.

Ten Commandments gives a good discussion of them, covering all aspects.

 

[adrift]

What do you mean do it my way? The problem with this question is that you do bow down to them. Not only statues and pictures, but this piece of bread that you call God.

Yes I bow to God. He gave us Himself when He said this IS my body this IS my blood.
You know after thinking about it. I have never seen anyone bow to a statue. Never. However, the word of God when it says not to bow down is referring to a false god. The reason not to bow is to give false worship.

7 you shall have no other gods before me.

8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments

It begins with the intent you shall have no other gods before me. The next versus are the explanation of having only ONE God.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Quote:
7 you shall have no other gods before me.

8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments

Adrift, In your last post here you quoted part of Deu.5 indicating that these were the first two commandments. You left out however, the first line of the first commandment. 6I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
This of coarse is your perogative. After all, it’s your post. You can include or exclude whatever you wish. Altho I find it curious that you would not include the first line of two commandments that we are lookig at.

However in your previous post, you included a quote box reproduced here:

:
Ex.20:2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Vs. 2&3 are the first commandment. I’m sure you will agree that v. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. means that we should not worship false gods.

Vs.4,5&6 are the second. There are two admonishments. We are not to bow down before them or worship them. We are not to do either one.

This quote is supposedly from me. I would like to state that this is not a quote from me. Here is the quote as I originally posted it

Ex.20:2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Vs. 2&3 are the first commandment. I’m sure you will agree that v. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. means that we should not worship false gods.

Vs.4,5&6 are the second. There are two admonishments. We are not to bow down before them or worship them. We are not to do either one.

Now while you do have the perogative to post whatever you wish in your own posts. You can choose to answer individual lines of my post. You can delete whole sections that you don’t feel the need to reply to. However when you post a quote box, everything in that quote must be included. YOU DO NOT HAVE AN EDITORIAL PEROGATIVE WHEN YOU POST A QUOTE. When you do that you make a statement under the guise that I said it. Now like I said you don’t have to reply to everything I said. However in this case you had to consiously go in and delete part of my post that should have been included. I’m not even going to speculate on why you did this altho I have an idea. Suffice it to say that I find this extremely disingenuos and unless you can give a GOOD explaination, I feel that it preclude further dialoge with you.

 

[adrift]

Adrift, In your last post here you quoted part of Deu.5 indicating that these were the first two commandments. You left out however, the first line of the first commandment. 6I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
This of coarse is your perogative. After all, it’s your post. You can include or exclude whatever you wish. Altho I find it curious that you would not include the first line of two commandments that we are lookig at…

Obviously you wish to avoid my questions and comments to produce red herrings. The point was that the versus you were quoting were not speaking to two different points but one: There is only ONE God to be worshiped.

Now while you do have the perogative to post whatever you wish in your own posts. You can choose to answer individual lines of my post. You can delete whole sections that you don’t feel the need to reply to. However when you post a quote box, everything in that quote must be included.YOU DO NOT HAVE AN EDITORIAL PEROGATIVE WHEN YOU POST A QUOTE. When you do that you make a statement under the guise that I said it.

You are incorrect. What I deleted did not impact on what I was saying nor did it change the meaning of what you posted. Since anyone can go back to the original post, after all that is what the post feature does, it is unnecessary and moderators ask you NOT to post whole quotes. This again is just a red herring to avoid answering which I note you did not answer my post.

Now like I said you don’t have to reply to everything I said. However in this case you had to consiously go in and delete part of my post that should have been included. I’m not even going to speculate on why you did this altho I have an idea. Suffice it to say that I find this extremely disingenuos and unless you can give a GOOD explanation, I feel that it preclude further dialoge with you

Now I understand this mad up rant. You can’t defend your position so you pick make up a “Hurt” in order to say you won’t answer. Talk about being disingenuous. .:bowdown::ehh::coffeeread:n