L
- Status
F
fellowChristian
Guest
Numbers 21:8-9:
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.”
I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon’s temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.
Deut. 5:8 - God’s commandment “thou shall not make a graven image” is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped.
Why do you use our Holy Bible?
That is like using a handbook made for Fords on a Chevy pickup?
sorry only thing I could come up with:blush:
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.”
I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon’s temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.
Deut. 5:8 - God’s commandment “thou shall not make a graven image” is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped.
Why do you use our Holy Bible?
That is like using a handbook made for Fords on a Chevy pickup?
sorry only thing I could come up with:blush:
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
I’ll say this again because it bears repeating in a way that can be applied to something we can all understand.
Using the bible to “try” to disprove the Church of Christ the Catholic Church is like trying to use the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation and the Mayflower Pact to disprove the existance of the United States.
Can’t be done!
As with the U.S. Constitution being born from the existance of the United States, so to is the bible born from the existance of the Catholic Church.
The “some group of people” that you refer to in your wording is the Catholic Church.
Any questions?
M
Mickey
Guest
Again, this is plagiarized from William Webster. I believe the moderators have already warned you about quoting without reference?
G
guanophore
Guest
This is great kujo! You are studying your Catholic Church history. Now maybe you have discovered why we value the writings of the early fathers. they were close to the people and the documents of the Lord and His apostles and can bear witness to us of how their teachings were understood and taught. They make up part of our Tradition. the NT canon was formed out of that Tradition, and the witness of these writers was one of the elements used to determine the Canon when it was finally officially proclaimed.
Good kujo! You are ready for your visitation. however, I would recommend that you complete your attitude of reception by meditating on the works of Simeon and Elisabeth. Their words will help form your heart for the time of meeting.
He could have, but He chose not to. If God created Eve without sin, why would it seem so inconceivable that He would do the same with the New Eve?
Right. The groups that did so were Catholic bishops in infallible councils that used the Sacred Traditions as a guide.
kujo313;2255060:
kujo, ALL Christians were Catholic at that time. It is not Catholic or Christian to “center” around the life of anyone but Jesus. If any such books did exist, as they may have, they would not have been included because they would not be consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches.
kujo, I don’t know how to explain to you that Mary is not God. I guess this belief is so ingrained in you that there is nothing that can be said that will convince you differently.
Don’t Pentecostals use the image of the dove to represent the HS? Aren’t you worried that people who see that symbol on you church, publications, or bible covers will think you belong to a religion that worships doves? You don’t worry about that because you know you don’t worship the dove. It represents something invisible, but looking at the symbol draws your mind toward the intangible.
J
Jaypeeto3
Guest
NO Catholic teaching about Mary “contradicts” scripture.
Not one.
Her sinlessness is prophesied in Genesis 3:15 where God prophecies the coming of the Seed of the Woman.
God says FIRST to the devil (serpent):
"I will PUT enmity between YOU and THE WOMAN "
After stating that the Woman who bears the seed would be the total enemy of the devil herself, THEN GOD ADDS:
" and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head even though you strike at his heel."
But the Woman of prophecy is the first human prophesied by God to be totally at enmity with the Devil, nothing in common with him, and God PUTS that enmity there.
[Moderator note: removed uncharitable comments]
Not one.
Her sinlessness is prophesied in Genesis 3:15 where God prophecies the coming of the Seed of the Woman.
God says FIRST to the devil (serpent):
"I will PUT enmity between YOU and THE WOMAN "
After stating that the Woman who bears the seed would be the total enemy of the devil herself, THEN GOD ADDS:
" and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head even though you strike at his heel."
But the Woman of prophecy is the first human prophesied by God to be totally at enmity with the Devil, nothing in common with him, and God PUTS that enmity there.
[Moderator note: removed uncharitable comments]
A
archangel63
Guest
Uhmmm, you pray to Jesus, don’t you?
Can’t get to heaven unless you die first…
T
tawheedah
Guest
The Catholics don’t believe there is one God either with their trinity.
3 Reasons Why I’m not Catholic
- The Father
- The Son
- The Holy Spirit
“Qul Huwa Allahu ahadun
Allahu al samadun
Lam yalid walam ya ladun
Walam yakun lahu kufawan ahadun”
This translates into:
Say; He is Allah, the One and Only
Allah the Eternal
He begetteth not,
Nor is he begotten
And there is None like unto Him.
How can God be himself and his own son and yet again a spirit?
I believe this associates partners with God.
Tawheed is the ONENESS of God.
PS I was raised Christian.
A
Aprilbaby
Guest
I thought it was praying THROUGH Jesus NOT to him and wasn’t isn’t he a Spirit???
Anyhow back to my Reply…
I’m not Catholic because I was NOT raised as a Catholic and later while Visiting didn’t understand many things and was “you must have FAITH child” so needless to say as a youth Religion was just interfeering and Inunderstandable and Especially Catholism was just hard.
The tRinity but Im not getting into to an argument, just stating my reason
and my 3rd reason the whole unbaptized baby/children not going to Heaven thing REALLY disturbs me… REALLY BAD
How can a grieving parent possibly find confort after that??? Just me, maybe it’s just me…
M
Mickey
Guest
One in essence and undivided–it is a great mystery.
M
Mickey
Guest
That was never doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that unbaptized babies/children are under the mercy and protection of God.
A
Aprilbaby
Guest
Thank God
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Classically, Christianity makes a distinction between substance/nature and person in God. Islam does not. Christianity says that God is Love. Islam more or less says that God is Being by refusing to see nature and person as different things. However, as John Milbank writes in a lovely essay called “Sophiology and Theurgy: the New Theological Horizon” :…one cannot take Being alone to be the primary principle. What is, manifests itself, else it is unthinkable. Therefore, as Gregory of Nyssa affirmed, Being is also dynamis, which is the power to affect. However, for Gregory dynamis is equally the power to be affected, because manifestation requires also a registering of this manifestation if it is to be there at all… In consequence, if we posit an initial Being which is “one,” and insist that it can only be if it shows itself, then we have immediately also to posit a “second,” which is the receiving capacity. The problem of mediation between the expressing first and the expressed–and so it would seem, reflexively expressed–second, then arises.
In other words (and to paraphrase horribly) Being which does not manifest does not, for all intents and purposes, exist. However, in manifesting, Being receives itself as manifestation. Here there are two things being posited–a manifestor and the manifestation. If the manifestation is to be a true manifestation of what it manifests, it must manifest it completely, not as wholly other than the manifestor, but as ESSENTIALLY identical to it. That is–they must be of the same nature. They must be identical on some level, though because of their relationship as manifestor and manifestation, they will be different.
Do you see where this is going? The Son is the perfect manifestation of the Father. They’re both God. The Spirit is the love that the Father has for the Son which the Son returns to the Father. The Son and the Spirit both reveal the Father. The Son is the “content” of the Father, the Spirit is his “form”. The Son, therefore, is Truth, the Spirit is Glory.
The great Muslim mystic and theologian ibn-Arabi writes that only God is. He radically asserts that we cannot claim to be at all–if we do, we posit something as being in contrast or in contradistinction to God. We posit two beings (at least). To whom, or to what, does God manifest, then? Not to us (we’re nothing!). To himself? Then he must be Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity–otherwise, one posits being or beings or a level of being outside of God.
The Trinity is the only doctrine which safeguards the Oneness of God, allows for the manifestation of God, and allows for creation to be as well (if only contingently). Assertions to the contrary just don’t cut it.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Tawheedah, I’m afraid that the subtleties of Christian theology are often lost on Islam–it goes both ways, of course, as the subtleties of Muslim belief are often lost on Christianity. But nonetheless, this is the best explanation I can offer:
Classically, Christianity makes a distinction between substance/nature and person in God. Islam does not. Christianity says that God is Love. Islam more or less says that God is Being by refusing to see nature and person as different things. However, as John Milbank writes in a lovely essay called “Sophiology and Theurgy: the New Theological Horizon” :…one cannot take Being alone to be the primary principle. What is, manifests itself, else it is unthinkable. Therefore, as Gregory of Nyssa affirmed, Being is also dynamis, which is the power to affect. However, for Gregory dynamis is equally the power to be affected, because manifestation requires also a registering of this manifestation if it is to be there at all… In consequence, if we posit an initial Being which is “one,” and insist that it can only be if it shows itself, then we have immediately also to posit a “second,” which is the receiving capacity. The problem of mediation between the expressing first and the expressed–and so it would seem, reflexively expressed–second, then arises.
In other words (and to paraphrase horribly) Being which does not manifest does not, for all intents and purposes, exist. However, in manifesting, Being receives itself as manifestation. Here there are two things being posited–a manifestor and the manifestation. If the manifestation is to be a true manifestation of what it manifests, it must manifest it completely, not as wholly other than the manifestor, but as ESSENTIALLY identical to it. That is–they must be of the same nature. They must be identical on some level, though because of their relationship as manifestor and manifestation, they will be different.
Do you see where this is going? The Son is the perfect manifestation of the Father. They’re both God. The Spirit is the love that the Father has for the Son which the Son returns to the Father. The Son and the Spirit both reveal the Father. The Son is the “content” of the Father, the Spirit is his “form”. The Son, therefore, is Truth, the Spirit is Glory.
The great Muslim mystic and theologian ibn-Arabi writes that only God is. He radically asserts that we cannot claim to be at all–if we do, we posit something as being in contrast or in contradistinction to God. We posit two beings (at least). To whom, or to what, does God manifest, then? Not to us (we’re nothing!). To himself? Then he must be Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity–otherwise, one posits being or beings or a level of being outside of God.
The Trinity is the only doctrine which safeguards the Oneness of God, allows for the manifestation of God, and allows for creation to be as well (if only contingently). Assertions to the contrary just don’t cut it.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
A
Aprilbaby
Guest
Mark I want to say from one forum poster to another THANK YOU. Thank you for respecting her and not critizing or belittling her and her beliefs. that is always the worse.
I’m afraid though I’m a little confused about something you said though?:coffeeread: :ehh:
at the end of your reply you stated
“The** Trinity **is the only doctrine which safeguards the Oneness of God, allows for the manifestation of God, and allows for creation to be as well (if only contingently). Assertions to the contrary just don’t cut it.”
How is this Trinity derives from the # 3 so how does it = 1???
Very confused really not harranguing or trying to get you in the great triangle/egg example debate Just wondering as I’m sure she is or will be when she sees this. Much respect
I’m afraid though I’m a little confused about something you said though?:coffeeread: :ehh:
at the end of your reply you stated
“The** Trinity **is the only doctrine which safeguards the Oneness of God, allows for the manifestation of God, and allows for creation to be as well (if only contingently). Assertions to the contrary just don’t cut it.”
How is this Trinity derives from the # 3 so how does it = 1???
Very confused really not harranguing or trying to get you in the great triangle/egg example debate Just wondering as I’m sure she is or will be when she sees this. Much respect
K
kujo313
Guest
Nope. Not from Webster. However, I find that you have no answer to this post other than to avoid the issue.
In their writings is many references to the Gospels and letters that we call the New Testament.
The “early church fathers” believed in “sola scriptula”. It’s the RCC who said “but if this, then that” and strays from the focus of Scripture.
K
kujo313
Guest
This is great kujo! You are studying your Catholic Church history. Now maybe you have discovered why we value the writings of the early fathers. they were close to the people and the documents of the Lord and His apostles and can bear witness to us of how their teachings were understood and taught. They make up part of our Tradition. the NT canon was formed out of that Tradition, and the witness of these writers was one of the elements used to determine the Canon when it was finally officially proclaimed.
Good kujo! You are ready for your visitation. however, I would recommend that you complete your attitude of reception by meditating on the works of Simeon and Elisabeth. Their words will help form your heart for the time of meeting.
He could have, but He chose not to. If God created Eve without sin, why would it seem so inconceivable that He would do the same with the New Eve?
Right. The groups that did so were Catholic bishops in infallible councils that used the Sacred Traditions as a guide.
kujo313;2255060:
Actually, we don’t have to use ANY images at all. If we need reminders, we have the Bible.kujo, ALL Christians were Catholic at that time. It is not Catholic or Christian to “center” around the life of anyone but Jesus. If any such books did exist, as they may have, they would not have been included because they would not be consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches.
kujo, I don’t know how to explain to you that Mary is not God. I guess this belief is so ingrained in you that there is nothing that can be said that will convince you differently.
Don’t Pentecostals use the image of the dove to represent the HS? Aren’t you worried that people who see that symbol on you church, publications, or bible covers will think you belong to a religion that worships doves? You don’t worry about that because you know you don’t worship the dove. It represents something invisible, but looking at the symbol draws your mind toward the intangible.
Ps 119:11
Your word I have hidden in my heart,
That I might not sin against You.
G
guanophore
Guest
The correct response, kujo, is to give your SOURCE! The reader should be able to go where you did, and study the material. By not posting the source of your information, you are breaking the forum rules, and commiting plagararism. Such behavior is not a good witness for anyone who calls themselves a Christian, Catholic or not!
12 Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. 1 Peter 2:11-12
No, kujo, they did not believe in sola scriptura. However, you are right that they used scripture extensively, as the Catholic Church has always done, and continues to do.
B
believers
Guest
It was never doctrine but the majority of Catholics believe in it. It was doctrine in that it was verbally taught by your religion. You guys are so big on “oral tradition” until it works against you.
M
Mickey
Guest
Here is your post:
*If that is true, then how can Irenaues, who lived from 130-202 AD, quote from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament taking over 1800 quotations from the New Testament alone?
Clement of Alexandria lived from 150-215 AD. He cited all the New Testament books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gave 2400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian lived from 160-220 AD. He made over 7200 New Testament citations.
Origen lived from 180-254 AD. He made nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.
By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the church fathers.*
Here is Webster:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.
By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html
Author: William Webster
**
So would you like to recant, or do we have to start reporting your dishonest tactics of cutting and pasting to the moderators?
M
Mickey
Guest
It was never part of the magisterial teaching. Nice try though.
- Status