R
rcwitness
Guest
Apples and oranges. Binding Teaching and salvation of individuals is very separate issues.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not to cross threads (I.e. I don’t want to start a new discussion about this topic since we have a recent thread about it) but does your statement imply/assume that Catholicism (in communion with Rome) is the Church that wrote the bible way back when? Or am I reading to much into it?
T
Telstar
Guest
Let’s look at the DR version of Matthew and Acts and compare them, apples to apples:
"Matthew 27: [3] Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, [4] Saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? look thou to it. [5] And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter.
[6] But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the corbona, because it is the price of blood. [7] And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter’s field, to be a burying place for strangers. [8] For this cause the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day."
“Acts 1: [18] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.”
They both refer to the field where Judas hanged himself as the “field of blood”, because it was bought by the Jews with the blood money that Judas returned to them. They refused to put it in the coffers because it was unclean “blood money” that had been used in their crime. So, technically Judas did purchase that field when he returned their blood money to them.
B
benhur
Guest
Of course, but the promised guidance in both can be misconstrued.Apples and oranges. Binding Teaching and salvation of individuals is very separate issues.
B
benhur
Guest
Well the implication is made by others (Catholics), and follows since P’s agree for the most part on bible index why not on everything else definitively taught by her. Hence the application of paradigm that C’s disagree with, OSAS. to her perpetual rightness.
Blessings
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes, I agree.
We are not called to question our salvation, but whether we are following Him faithfully because our obedience has bearing on our salvation. Examine our conscience so that we can reconcile through Jesus.
And we are not called to question our leaders, but obey them.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
You asked, “And didn’t he say that no one gets to the Father except through him?”Sometimes things are all or nothing, ben.
Jesus made some things all or nothing. If you’re not for us, you’re against us. Didn’t he say that?
And didn’t he say that no one gets to the Father except through him?
Yep. He certainly did.
All or nothing.
It’s that great Catholic both/and at work again, ben.
You seem to think that since Catholicism has so many both/ands…that EVERYTHING is both/and.
And yet…we have some things which are all or nothing.
That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.
I do believe that Jesus said that “No one comes to the Father except thru Me”, or words to that effect, but Jesus did NOT say that there was only one way to Jesus, did He?
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
You wrote, “And we are not called to question our leaders, but obey them.”
Are you speaking about Church leaders or State leaders or both?
Concerning “Church leaders”, just what leaders are you referring to and is it just clerical leaders?
Would it include some or all of the following: Brother, Sister, Deacon, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, Pope?
Would you think that any of the above would “trump” our conscience?
I have heard it said from some of our “leaders” that we are to follow (obey) our conscience, have you heard this?
A recent Pope went around the whole world making public penances for the “sins” of the Catholic Church.
Some of these “sins” were done by members of all of the above mentioned clerical groups, we are not called to obey our leaders but to obey God.
Jesus never said that the Church would be perfect but Jesus did tell us that the Church has a mission and Jesus told us about that mission when He said, “… and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Yes.
C
Conradine
Guest
I guess the thread was aimed to non catholic christians. ^^
Anyway, there are objective truths. No matter who says what, if a thing is real, it’s real.
Some of the things that rabbi Joshua ( Jesus ) preached were, in my opinion, objective and verifiable truths. Some other were not. And some other, again in my opinion, were never said at all.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Im more of an Agnostic and it comes from uncertainty, the unreliability of the Bible, and the unreliablility of the Church.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
The Douay-Rheims version is the only version that translates Acts 1:18 as “being hanged” which doesn’t make much sense. Why would a man who is hanged by the neck “burst asunder in the midst.” The Greek literally says, “and headfirst having become” (και πρηνης γενομενος). Other versions have translated this as either falling “headlong,” or “headfirst,” or “on his face”. They have also said that the Greek might also mean “swelling up”:
King James Version (KJV): 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE): 8 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong[d] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
d. Acts 1:18 Or swelling up
English Standard Version (ESV): 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong[d]he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
d. Acts 1:18 Or swelling up
Contemporary English Version (CEV): 18 Then Judas bought some land with the money he was given for doing that evil thing. He fell headfirst into the field. His body burst open, and all his insides came out.
American Standard Version (ASV): 18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
International Standard Version (ISV): 18 (Now this man bought a field with the money he got for his crime. Falling on his face, he burst open in the middle, and all his intestines gushed out.
The Message (MSG): 18-20 “As you know, he took the evil bribe money and bought a small farm. There he came to a bad end, rupturing his belly and spilling his guts.
T
Telstar
Guest
I absolutely believe the CC is infallible, in all matters of faith and morals.
You’re referring to the man that John said was casting out devils in the name of Jesus, and they forbade him. It’s possible that the Apostles who saw him didn’t know him, but maybe Jesus did.
The only one that matters. The one Jesus taught them to perform on everyone who would accept the Gospel, and desired to become a member of the Body of Christ. Whoever performs it is irrelevant, as long as water is used and the proper intention is there.“Matthew 28: [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
Jesus taught the Apostles much more during His 3 1/2 years of living with them, than was ever written in the Bible (see John). Some of it was only passed on to others through oral methods, particularly those things that only pertained to the priesthood (the Apostles and those ordained by them to preach the Gospel, like Paul), that were never meant to be taught to other people. Jesus didn’t send anyone else out to preach the Gospel and teach, except the ones He specifically chose. He taught the Apostles what and how to teach. The other disciples that helped them, were also chosen.
These, and many other teachings, are what the Church calls “Sacred Tradition”. Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, together, make up the Deposit of Faith, which is the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It’s a combination of all that Jesus did, and all the teachings that He passed down to the Apostles, during His public ministry. This is the only source of all Church Doctrine. There’s no other source than what was passed down by those means. She can’t just make things up a few hundred years after the fact, that were never there. All She can do is try to make those teachings more clear to us, especially when there are contradictions about what they really mean. That’s what Councils do.
There’s no possibility of there being any error found in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, if we truly believe what Jesus said. Because if there were, then the Holy Spirit failed to do everything that Jesus said He would, and so did Jesus. If that’s the case, then the Holy Spirit must be pretty weak, if He’s incapable of doing all that Jesus said He would do.
"John 14: [16] And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. [17] The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. [18] I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. [19] Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live. [20] In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. "If the Catholic Church really has strayed away from the Truth that Jesus taught His Apostles, then it must mean that Jesus lied when He said that the Holy Spirit would lead them (the Body of Christ, aka His Church, that He established through them) “to all truth”. And, that He would remain with them, “even to the consummation of the world”. According to what people outside the Church claim, their beliefs make it seem that Jesus broke all of those promises that He made to His Apostles, and truly left them as orphans, after all. Wouldn’t that mean He’s a liar, and a fraud? :bigyikes:
That is exactly what you and many others believe happened, right? That the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church that Jesus Christ first built on the Apostles? So, why would you, or anyone else, ever believe anything else Jesus said or did in the Gospels? How could you believe that Jesus won’t break all of the other promises that He made to the Apostles? Can any of us ever really be saved? What about the resurrection? Will He ever come back for us? Does God really love us at all, if any part of what Jesus told us wasn’t true? Don’t you see that when we choose to ignore one or two of the promises that Jesus made to His Apostles, then we also have to ignore all of the others, as well. Don’t we? Unless we decide to make up a completely different explanation that doesn’t really fit what Jesus promised the Apostles.
Exactly.
If by ‘some’, you mean Jesus, then yes. He knows who’s right because He guaranteed it.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Im just quoting Hebrews 13:17
Hebrews 13:17Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
T
Telstar
Guest
Let’s look at some other versions of Matthew’s account.
Matthew 27:
KJV 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
NRSVCE 4 He said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent** blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5 Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
ESV 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.
CEV 4 and said, “I have sinned by betraying a man who has never done anything wrong.”
“So what? That’s your problem,” they replied. 5 Judas threw the money into the temple and then went out and hanged himself.
ASV 4 saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to it.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
Do I really need to post all the rest of the versions you did for Acts, or will these suffice to say that, “he went and hanged himself” was what most of them clearly stated in Matthew’s account? I might also add that if so many agree that Judas indeed hanged himself in the Gospel of Matthew, why is it that only the DR also says the same thing in Acts? Which one would you say is being consistent?**
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Of course we are!
When Jesus admits us into Heaven, there may well be little cliques who stammer " but… but… but Jesus! They weren’t part of our groooup!!" and that will have zero effect whatsoever on our salvation. We believe in the Truth of the Bible God gave us through His servants in the Early Christian Church because God has graced us to do so. The Holy Spirit goes where He will and He is most certainly not bound by manmade rules.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
S
SteveVH
Guest
How do you know that Judas didn’t hang himself and then, after his body decayed sufficiently, fell from the rope and burst open? Why does it have to be a contradiction? I would first assume that there is no contradiction and then put two 2 and 2 together. People don’t normally burst open when they fall. A bloated, rotting body would burst open readily. It wouldn’t take long in the middle eastern sun.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
How do you know that Judas didn’t hang himself and then, after his body decayed sufficiently, fell from the rope and burst open? Why does it have to be a contradiction? I would first assume that there is no contradiction and then put two 2 and 2 together.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
It’s completely incoherent. I get why you rationalize it…your tradition demands it…but it is no more logical than the Mormon “great apostasy” or the JHW denial of the trinity.
It is a new idea that came about and at the time the logical conclusions weren’t hammered out. Once confronted, historical fabrication or inconsistent reasoning occurs to maintain the erroneous opinion.
- Status