Not Convinced.....

[Genesius]

no Richard. that is not an answer to my question. i asked a simple yes or no question. any Jewish scholar will tell you, that this verse has nothing to do with abortion. the bible is not clear at all on the issue. so lets try this again. and this is my last try. i will try to rephrase so you can understand the question. the bible does not address abortion, euthanasia, or assisted suicide. does a person who defends or practices these acts have a place in the world to come? again. its a simple YES or NO question Richard. these are three such practices condemned by tradition, that are not in the bible, that directly affect our salvation. all im looking for Richard is a yes, that people who practice or defend abortion, assisted suicide, or euthanasia, have a place in the world to come. or no. that you agree with Catholic tradition, which condemns such acts, and that if not repented of, can lead to a persons ultimate rejection by God? thanx in advance

And let’s not forget contraception. That is nowhere in Scripture either. How do we know if it’s right or wrong, or sin or no sin, and if so venial or mortal?

 

[Genesius]

As a sidenote, but somewhat related I would like to point out…and I’m sure whoever mentioned stem cell research was really probably thinking FETUS stem cell research. I would not be here without an ADULT stem cell transplant. I had AML, the most aggressive form of Leukemia. God saw fit to use the skill and knowledge He blessed the medical professionals with to work a miracle and save my life.

What the Church condemns is not ADULT stem cell research, but research that depends upon killing an unborn human being. Just thought that deserved a bit of clarification.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Richard,
In your defense, you did say that “IF you are reading me right…” You are not. I am not saying that AT ALL. I was just saying that all (in the totality of Scriptures) cannot inherently mean all humanity because Jesus would be considered in there. Jesus knew no sin. Therefore, “all have sinned” is a hyperbole which the Bible tends to use on many accounts. Romans use of “all” does NOT have to be amended in any way, shape or form. It is just a hyperbole because it explicitly makes NO exception but we all know Christ is sinless. Therefore “all” is just an exaggeration. Not sure how many other ways I can put it. But yes, the reasoning you mentioned would be wrong. I agree.

How do you suppose I prove that when I said that they are needed in ways not yet seen? Just read about it. There are plenty of authors much more intelligent than me.

I got the idea about your idea of salvation. You are not looking at the entire Word of God. You are just picking and choosing. Why would Scriptures say all that it says but only mean that “to be saved one has to believe and let that be the end of it”? It does not make sense. All doctrine is necessary for salvation in different ways. If you fail to see this, then you failed to see beyond the verses you gave me. Just because I cannot prove it means nothing. It just means I cannot prove it. Others can. It is not just my conjecture. It is the reality of Christian life which is about Christ, the Word of God. And the Word of God has in it every single doctrine proclaimed and not yet proclaimed, so why ignore most of it and only look at the part you like? If you do not understand that, then I will keep trying until you do. Unfortunately, I lack computer so it may take a while.

What I meant about the Incarnation is that the word is not found in the Bible. I was hoping that was assumed by the quotations. Apparently not. But my point with that was that we have to place a name on the realities of the Bible. Same with the Trinity, THE BIBLE, etc…

Again, how do you know that Scriptures are infallible? I will ignore your ridiculous question.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You catch on quick! Well here’s my point: it takes an extra-biblical authority to tell you what even constitutes Scripture. There is no “inspired table of contents” (as people like to say) that came with the Bible. If everything you believe comes from the Bible alone, you haven’t even got a Bible to work with.

I’m sure you understand what you are saying here. That makes one of us.

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

You told me you deleted my posts…and this thread is going back may be a year.

Why didn’t Jesus just pass out Bibles and then the whole mess wouldn’t have happened…

 

[BlueShadow123]

Kathlee, a user cannot delete another users posts. They would have to be a mod.

Also too Richard, what in my post did you not agree with?

Did you notice I never made any actual ‘matter-of-fact’ statements?

I said simply what COULD be. I said it is up to the person to choose what they want to believe.

But if you don’t want to answer me, thats… fine too, I guess.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,
In your defense, you did say that “IF you are reading me right…” You are not. I am not saying that AT ALL. I was just saying that all (in the totality of Scriptures) cannot inherently mean all humanity because Jesus would be considered in there. Jesus knew no sin. Therefore, “all have sinned” is a hyperbole which the Bible tends to use on many accounts. Romans use of “all” does NOT have to be amended in any way, shape or form. It is just a hyperbole because it explicitly makes NO exception but we all know Christ is sinless. Therefore “all” is just an exaggeration. Not sure how many other ways I can put it. But yes, the reasoning you mentioned would be wrong. I agree.

Ok, I think we need to take a little closer look at Rom.3
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Paul is explaining the principle of righteousness and that righteousnesss cannot be obtained through the keeping of the law v.20. Verse 21 is quite interesting. It says that now the righteousness of God is manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets Ok what does the law and the prophets mean. Well, in Pauls time this was the way in which the scriptures where refered. There is one function for the law and that was to show mankind that we are sinners, right? we got that so far? the function of the law is to show mnkind all of mankind that they are sinners. The prophets can be explained in Rev.19:10b “for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Ok, what do we have so far? We have the law which shows us that we are sinners. Then we have the prophets that show us the solution to that sin problem, which is “the testimony of Jesus” Now remember v. 21But now the **righteousness **of God without the law is manifested. That word righteousness means right with God or sinlessness. So the whole point here is Paul trying to explain to us how we can become righteous or right with God or sinless. Ok on to v. 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: Paul is telling us that we obtain righteousness, being right with God, sinlessness by faith in Jesus. Now let me ask you could we obtain righteousness, being right with God, sinlessness if we had faith in a sinner. Quite clearly the answer would be no. So, v. 23 is talking about all those that are sinners that would be righteous, right with God, sinless. Must come to Jesus the sinless son of God. V.24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Here we have God’s plan of salvation in a nutshell. V.23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; of necessity is talking of all those sinners seeking righteousness and since that righteousness is obtained exclusively through faith in Jesus He is the only exception. Jer.23: 6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The LORD OF OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS here refered to is Jesus.

I got the idea about your idea of salvation. You are not looking at the entire Word of God. You are just picking and choosing. Why would Scriptures say all that it says but only mean that “to be saved one has to believe and let that be the end of it”? It does not make sense. All doctrine is necessary for salvation in different ways. If you fail to see this, then you failed to see beyond the verses you gave me. Just because I cannot prove it means nothing. It just means I cannot prove it. Others can. It is not just my conjecture. It is the reality of Christian life which is about Christ, the Word of God. And the Word of God has in it every single doctrine proclaimed and not yet proclaimed, so why ignore most of it and only look at the part you like? If you do not understand that, then I will keep trying until you do. Unfortunately, I lack computer so it may take a while.

The bible is about Jesus some directly other parts meant to teach Jesus’ principles. It is all designed to bring us to a faith in Jesus. Jn14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[romesweethome]

That may be true, but I am not sure what verse it says that, explicitly, and the other scriptural explanations that I have heard justifying that belief have not been related to the belief at all and have not justified it. It may be true, I would just need to see the verse, if one such verse exists.

Here is a verse for you.

Hold fast to the traditions which we have handed down to you, both by word of mouth or written epistle.

The Word of God in scriptural form is stated as being a tradition in this passage.

The Word of God in oral form is also stated as being a tradition in this passage.

How do you know what the oral form of the Word of God is without the church that handed down the oral form. I would say that without the Oral form of the Word of God, you only have a part of God’s Word that He wants you to have. With scripture alone, i only have part of what God intended for me, according to Paul.

peace, rsh

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Kathlee, a user cannot delete another users posts. They would have to be a mod.

Also too Richard, what in my post did you not agree with?

Did you notice I never made any actual ‘matter-of-fact’ statements?

I said simply what COULD be. I said it is up to the person to choose what they want to believe.

But if you don’t want to answer me, thats… fine too, I guess.

It’s this that I had a problem with

You’re right that Jesus said everybody is a sinner. They just believe Mary is an exception. This is because Jesus is perfect so one would automatically assume he could not have been born from someone with sin. So we can assume she was sinless, but then again the bible doesn’t actually say she was ‘sinless’. Some of the apostles say she was sinless, but I do not have proof of that. Its an assumption. It would be nice if there was more information about her, but there isn’t. So you can assume she is sinless, and that she did not have any other kids, and that shes queen of heaven, or whatever you want to believe, thats up to you. I just wanted you to know they do not worship Mary.

You do say that we can believe what we want and that goes without saying, but you seem to be leaning to the sinless side and I don’t agree with that.
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Whose flesh was Jesus in the likeness of Blue?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Here is a verse for you.

Hold fast to the traditions which we have handed down to you, both by word of mouth or written epistle.

The Word of God in scriptural form is stated as being a tradition in this passage.

The Word of God in oral form is also stated as being a tradition in this passage.

How do you know what the oral form of the Word of God is without the church that handed down the oral form. I would say that without the Oral form of the Word of God, you only have a part of God’s Word that He wants you to have. With scripture alone, i only have part of what God intended for me, according to Paul.

peace, rsh

What do you believe is in your tradition that is essential to our salvation that is not in the bible?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

You told me you deleted my posts…and this thread is going back may be a year.

You accused me of this way back then. I posted you then that I did not delete your post nor do I know how or care to know how to do that. Why would I do that Kathleen?

Why didn’t Jesus just pass out Bibles and then the whole mess wouldn’t have happened…

What whole mess?

 

[zach_dunn]

I’m sure you understand what you are saying here. That makes one of us.

I’m not sure I see what is so difficult here . . . you believe in sola Scriptura, meaning that you don’t believe anything not taught in Scripture. Well, the canon of the Bible is not taught in Scripture, there isn’t a list anywhere in there! So how can you, as a Protestant, actually have a Bible . . . since the canon came from the Church?

 

[BlueShadow123]

It’s this that I had a problem with

You do say that we can believe what we want and that goes without saying, but you seem to be leaning to the sinless side and I don’t agree with that.
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Whose flesh was Jesus in the likeness of Blue?

Wait, what?

I’m sinning because I answered you about how catholics see Mary?

What are you on about?

 

[KathleenGee]

He told me he deleted my posts…meaning to me, he ignored them. I know what you mean…

I was quoting the catechism ver batim…any way, onward Christian soldiers…

 

[KathleenGee]

So back to the discussion here, Richard, why didn’t Jesus pass out the bible when He was here on earth??? Forget the printing press…just why didn’t He pass out the Bible to people…people look at the book and then they get it…just use the bible…and nothing else.

What do you think Catholics are trying to do when they worship at Mass, that is more than just reading the bible…follow me?..

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Richard,
Your question “What is in Tradition that is needed for salvation and not in the Bible?” has been answered. But, you will not believe anything we say so stop asking. Seriously, it is pointless. The Bible is not limited to those things you said. As a matter of fact, those are minutes parts of it. It is not a mere biography (about Jesus) or textbook (teach His principles) as you claim; it is Divine Revelation written down. It is the written Word of God. It is living. Hebrews 4:12. All doctrine is necessary for salvation; otherwise, they would not be doctrine. They are not just words and letters. If they were, then life would be pointless. If you fail to see this, then so be it. It is true. Just think about all doctrine. Anunciation of Christ, Christ’s Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Suffering, Crucifixion, Death, preaching to the dead, Resurrection, Ascension, Mediator, Redemption of Man, The Holy Trinity, Mary’s sinlessness, Mother of God, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Queen of Heaven, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Indulgences, Commandments, Communion of Saints, Infallibility, Creation, Marriage, Confession, Holy Communion, Eucharist, Eucharistic Adoration, Tradition, Holy Spirit, Prayer, Faith and Works, Divine Grace, Justification, Salvation, etc…

I realize you do not agree with some of these but that is because you fail to see why they would be needed in our salvation. Can I explain them? Heck no! But it is all true to the Christian life. I guarantee that you live by at least 85% of them for you own salvation and not even know it, including the ones about Mary (which are about Christ anyway). It is all there in Tradition, spoken and written. Do we need to know every single word of every single doctrine? Nope but that does not mean we do not know it.

Your analysis of Romans is way too confusing, for me anyway. The Church’s explanation is way easier and is objective. The conclusion was reached via premises:

1. All have sinned
2. But, Christ did not sin
3. Therefore, “All” must be an exaggeration.

It is simple, logical, reasonable, rational, biblical, etc…

Not the other way around which is the way you made. But, it is too weird to be put into a syllogism. But the premises are reached via the conclusion and that is a bad way to argue.

Romans 3:23 is a major claim and MUST be able to stand on its own without contradiction to any other verse in Scripture as do all others. In the Catholic view, it does stand without contradiction. In your view, it does NOT stand without contradiction. Do you see your error?

Again, how do you know Scriptures are infallible?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I forgot to mention one small thing in rebuttal to Richard for Blue.

Jesus’ flesh was in the likeness of His Mother’s. “And the Word became flesh.” John 1:14. He had to get His flesh from somewhere. Just as all children do, He took flesh from His Mother (or His incubator or whatever makes you feel better about yourself). Hence, another vital part to the doctrine of the Incarnation was Mary’s sinlessness or, as I like to call it, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. I think I just heard your blood boil at this last sentence. But anyway, His flesh was like His Mother’s. He probably even looked like her. If DNA testing existed back then, they knew how to use it and actually used it, then Jesus’ DNA would surely match His Mother’s. I digress but you get my point. What was that Job question? “How can something clean come from something unclean?” Hence, God defied that in the Immaculate Conception because He had to give His Son flesh that was unstained.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I still don’t get what I did wrong. Actually I did nothing wrong. I answered his question. And im not getting in a fight with this ‘Richard’ guy. I just want to know what he is on about…

 

[benidict]

I appreciate you trying to dumb your question down to match my limited capacity to understand it. But that pales in comparison to my appreciation that this is your last attempt to convey it.

Anyhow I did answer your question. The bible does condemn killing in Ex.20:13 and Luke 1:41tells us that the entity in the womb is a human (babe). I couldn’t give a hoot less what Jewish scholars think. Abortion is condemned in the bible. So, any other doctries that you think are exclusively in your tradition that you think are essential for our salvation?

ok Richard. i see you cannot answer a simple yes or no question. good enough. but its too bad you dont give a hoot what Jewish scholars think. they really are worth reading. ah well :coffeeread: peace

 

[benidict]

I still don’t get what I did wrong. Actually I did nothing wrong. I answered his question. And im not getting in a fight with this ‘Richard’ guy. I just want to know what he is on about…

you didnt do anything wrong my friend. and dont be intimidated by Richard. hes just a huge loveable fuzzball. if you dont wanna get into it with him, no worrys…ill be more than happy to. Peace