Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Thanks,
ZP
- Status
ZP
R
Ruben
Guest
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
This isn’t really a response. It is an attack against the church. And is nothing but “pre-chewed” anti-catholicism.
First, this person mentions “grace plus works.” Well, yeah!!! James 2:17 “So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
Nothing beyond scripture? Just a few things off my “cheat sheet.” 1 Cor. 11: hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you.
2 Thess. 2:15 hold fast to traditions, whetheroral or by letter.
2 Thess 3:6 shun those acting not according to tradition.
In fact, you could probably find plenty of rebuttel here on Catholic Answers (they put out my "cheat sheet
Actually, the bit I have I got long time ago. I believe it came when I subscribed to This Rock magazine. But that was years ago. The Leaflet Missal catalog has it availabe. You might also want to check into the “Catholic Answers bible.”
Good luck!
First, this person mentions “grace plus works.” Well, yeah!!! James 2:17 “So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
Nothing beyond scripture? Just a few things off my “cheat sheet.” 1 Cor. 11: hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you.
2 Thess. 2:15 hold fast to traditions, whetheroral or by letter.
2 Thess 3:6 shun those acting not according to tradition.
In fact, you could probably find plenty of rebuttel here on Catholic Answers (they put out my "cheat sheet
Actually, the bit I have I got long time ago. I believe it came when I subscribed to This Rock magazine. But that was years ago. The Leaflet Missal catalog has it availabe. You might also want to check into the “Catholic Answers bible.”Good luck!
F
fbl9
Guest
hi ZP first one needs to determine what St. Paul meant when he said" what is written"if he was only refering to scripture then that would mean only the OT for at the time of St.Paul’s writing there was no other scripture…as for the comment on the Church being Judasim dressed as christainity (lol it makes no sense),a little reminder that the Jewish religion was the only true religion established by God,then God Himself came down and reveled the full truth,hence christianity…even if the catholic faith is full of herisies it is still the one true religion established by God Himself just as Judaism was.
R
RobHom
Guest
“ziapueblo”…HI!
First, I will tell you that I will not interpret the passage that the responder has “cited”. I will only go so far as to tell you that the responder has taken the path of what I call “classic snippetizing” which is taking a line of scripture out of context to attempt to validate a thought. Here are two quotes from 1st Corinthians 4:6
From the Douay-Rheims: drbo.org/chapter/53004.htm
6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.
From the “New” King James Version: biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&version=50
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
Now, two things are evident to me… The responder has taken the passage out of context. And the responder has misapplied it to fit an agenda. And, if you ask me…just based on a simple take of the difference in language used by the two different versions…it seems to me that the NKJV has effectively rewritten the passage to mean something different than it originally said. I think its rather clear…and in any event the context is changed as applied to the total reading.
Bad use of scripture…especially when trying to dress up a pig. And all the responder is trying to do is dress up a pig. No matter how hard he tries…its still a pig. Multiple false allegations piled upon each other…classic move. Bury you in nonsense… Your only response can possibly be to delineate each and every charge he made and demand “secular” and verifiable proofs with good links to each and every one…and tell him that failing to provide irrefutable proofs…you will accept his apologies for his slander.
First, I will tell you that I will not interpret the passage that the responder has “cited”. I will only go so far as to tell you that the responder has taken the path of what I call “classic snippetizing” which is taking a line of scripture out of context to attempt to validate a thought. Here are two quotes from 1st Corinthians 4:6
From the Douay-Rheims: drbo.org/chapter/53004.htm
6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.
From the “New” King James Version: biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&version=50
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
Now, two things are evident to me… The responder has taken the passage out of context. And the responder has misapplied it to fit an agenda. And, if you ask me…just based on a simple take of the difference in language used by the two different versions…it seems to me that the NKJV has effectively rewritten the passage to mean something different than it originally said. I think its rather clear…and in any event the context is changed as applied to the total reading.
Bad use of scripture…especially when trying to dress up a pig. And all the responder is trying to do is dress up a pig. No matter how hard he tries…its still a pig. Multiple false allegations piled upon each other…classic move. Bury you in nonsense… Your only response can possibly be to delineate each and every charge he made and demand “secular” and verifiable proofs with good links to each and every one…and tell him that failing to provide irrefutable proofs…you will accept his apologies for his slander.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The Church has never interpreted 1 Cor 4:6 as your friend did. It is only a contemporary Protestant interpretation in an attempt to justify sola scriptura.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains it thusly:“All things are for your sakes” (2 Cor 4:15); that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ’s ministers, against another [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the foregoing; for Wis (4:19) states: “He will dash them puffed up and speechless to the ground.” He is saying not to go beyond what is written about being puffed up and arrogant, as was detailed in the book of Wisdom. As a sola scripturist, your friend has no basis on defining what writing Paul is referencing since the text doesn’t say. Your friend is, ironically, adding to Scripture.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains it thusly:“All things are for your sakes” (2 Cor 4:15); that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ’s ministers, against another [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the foregoing; for Wis (4:19) states: “He will dash them puffed up and speechless to the ground.” He is saying not to go beyond what is written about being puffed up and arrogant, as was detailed in the book of Wisdom. As a sola scripturist, your friend has no basis on defining what writing Paul is referencing since the text doesn’t say. Your friend is, ironically, adding to Scripture.
M
mtr01
Guest
T
thisismysn229
Guest
ZP,
Your friend seems angry. That is so unfortunate, as he seems like he has potential to make a scholarly argument. The problem with rhetoric like this is that it takes many times the effort to refute it as to spout it. Here are some of my responses to his attacks.
I do not know what context he tried to place 2 Thessalonians into, but I cannot help but notice this: In the same breath he uses to defend Sola Scriptura, he apparently needs to add “context.” I doubt not that Scripture often needs to be read in context, but I doubt the argument of anyone who says Scripture alone is valid, but then has to inject “context” which is not made clear within the Scriptures. Where did this context come from? Was it written by Paul? Or by Pastor Bob? If it was written by some guy, or even some great historian, how is that context any more than the traditional context given by the Holy Catholic Church?
That brings me to my next point. He asks how we could dare criticize the Mormon church because they have a pope and apostles like we have. Very simply, the Catholic Church has 2000 years of truth handed down to us via Christ and his witnesses; the Mormon church has less than 200 years of early American science fiction handed down to it from a false prophet.
Your friend even seems upset that Rome claims to have the “only truth.” As if there should be more than one truth? Does he expect the Catholic Church to say “what’s true for you, is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”?
Preaching another gospel? Picking and choosing Scripture? All Scripture is God-breathed, but the Holy Bible did not have a table of contents until the Holy Spirit directed the picking and choosing of what gospels and other scriptures were genuine and authentic. And what band of mere men were God’s physical instruments in this process? You guessed it…”Rome.” There seem to be a few examples of Protestants altering the Scriptures when they make a schism from the Church or from each other. Luther and the Jehovas Witnesses come to mind.
Again, I am not sure of the context of your debate with this gentleman, but he posits “Where in the Bible is it called the Bible?” In any context, I fail to see how the question is a threat to “Rome.” Rather, if the Bible does not identify itself as The Bible, it is that much more difficult for a Protestant to cite Scripture in support of “The Bible Alone” doctrine.
As for Islam, being part of the plan of Salvation does not mean they will share in it, unless they are forgiven by, and converted to Christ. Christ’s executioners, betrayers, and deniers are all part of the plan. The devil was part of the plan. I’m sure God did not fail to plan for the role of Islam in his plan for Salvation. The pope at no time meant or said, “All faithful Muslims will go to Heaven.” Moreover, history shows that armies and navies faithful to the Catholic Church fought against the leviathan which is Islam, while Protestant nations often aided the Sultan.
I’m sure this will only enrage your friend more, but go ahead and remind him that Mary is not just a mere created person, she is a mere created person created without original sin, so that she could be a worthy Mother of God and Co-redemptress. She was the first person saved, having taken Jesus into her heart and her body as no one else ever could. And if titles such as these are troublesome for your friend, I understand. Terms and concepts like the “Trinity” and “Subtitutionary Atonement” are troublesome for non-believers, but that does not stop us from using the terms. The Church has never hesitated to recognize Mary’s subordinate role in the Salvation provided by Christ, and has never crossed the line between reverence for, and worship of Mary. He is welcome to read a wealth of literature by Catholic theologians which can explain these terms for him.
ZP, I am encouraged by your faith. Never let fundamentalist rhetoric shed doubt on the Church’s teachings, nor on the Scriptures. I’ve often had to go seek an explanation just as you have. God bless!
DM
Your friend seems angry. That is so unfortunate, as he seems like he has potential to make a scholarly argument. The problem with rhetoric like this is that it takes many times the effort to refute it as to spout it. Here are some of my responses to his attacks.
I do not know what context he tried to place 2 Thessalonians into, but I cannot help but notice this: In the same breath he uses to defend Sola Scriptura, he apparently needs to add “context.” I doubt not that Scripture often needs to be read in context, but I doubt the argument of anyone who says Scripture alone is valid, but then has to inject “context” which is not made clear within the Scriptures. Where did this context come from? Was it written by Paul? Or by Pastor Bob? If it was written by some guy, or even some great historian, how is that context any more than the traditional context given by the Holy Catholic Church?
That brings me to my next point. He asks how we could dare criticize the Mormon church because they have a pope and apostles like we have. Very simply, the Catholic Church has 2000 years of truth handed down to us via Christ and his witnesses; the Mormon church has less than 200 years of early American science fiction handed down to it from a false prophet.
Your friend even seems upset that Rome claims to have the “only truth.” As if there should be more than one truth? Does he expect the Catholic Church to say “what’s true for you, is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”?
Preaching another gospel? Picking and choosing Scripture? All Scripture is God-breathed, but the Holy Bible did not have a table of contents until the Holy Spirit directed the picking and choosing of what gospels and other scriptures were genuine and authentic. And what band of mere men were God’s physical instruments in this process? You guessed it…”Rome.” There seem to be a few examples of Protestants altering the Scriptures when they make a schism from the Church or from each other. Luther and the Jehovas Witnesses come to mind.
Again, I am not sure of the context of your debate with this gentleman, but he posits “Where in the Bible is it called the Bible?” In any context, I fail to see how the question is a threat to “Rome.” Rather, if the Bible does not identify itself as The Bible, it is that much more difficult for a Protestant to cite Scripture in support of “The Bible Alone” doctrine.
As for Islam, being part of the plan of Salvation does not mean they will share in it, unless they are forgiven by, and converted to Christ. Christ’s executioners, betrayers, and deniers are all part of the plan. The devil was part of the plan. I’m sure God did not fail to plan for the role of Islam in his plan for Salvation. The pope at no time meant or said, “All faithful Muslims will go to Heaven.” Moreover, history shows that armies and navies faithful to the Catholic Church fought against the leviathan which is Islam, while Protestant nations often aided the Sultan.
I’m sure this will only enrage your friend more, but go ahead and remind him that Mary is not just a mere created person, she is a mere created person created without original sin, so that she could be a worthy Mother of God and Co-redemptress. She was the first person saved, having taken Jesus into her heart and her body as no one else ever could. And if titles such as these are troublesome for your friend, I understand. Terms and concepts like the “Trinity” and “Subtitutionary Atonement” are troublesome for non-believers, but that does not stop us from using the terms. The Church has never hesitated to recognize Mary’s subordinate role in the Salvation provided by Christ, and has never crossed the line between reverence for, and worship of Mary. He is welcome to read a wealth of literature by Catholic theologians which can explain these terms for him.
ZP, I am encouraged by your faith. Never let fundamentalist rhetoric shed doubt on the Church’s teachings, nor on the Scriptures. I’ve often had to go seek an explanation just as you have. God bless!
DM
S
strugglingalong
Guest
I find this funny:
“Does it concern you at all that mary participates in the redemption of souls as a mere created person?”
Don’t each of us participate in the redemption of souls every time we share Jesus with someone else? Does he reject that as vehemently (I bet he does not). Protestant contradictions never cease to amaze.
Pax Christi tecum.
“Does it concern you at all that mary participates in the redemption of souls as a mere created person?”
Don’t each of us participate in the redemption of souls every time we share Jesus with someone else? Does he reject that as vehemently (I bet he does not). Protestant contradictions never cease to amaze.
Pax Christi tecum.
N
Neal
Guest
I think that Co-redemptress doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. In English Co means like, equal, as in co-worker. In latin this means more like, subservient, like how we are co-works with God in the salvation of our brothers. So in this way yeah, Mary did participate in our redemption, as did St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist and whoever else, but with Mary in a special way, that least thats how I understand it.
- Status