Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thing said:
Sacred Tradition is both oral and written.

The Apostles spoke, they rarely wrote.

Doctrines and Dogmas are that which was taught by Christ, by the Apostles, and/or have been delivered to the faithful by the Church.

=> Doctrines come to us from Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
Yet, the doctrine of the immaculate conception was not a Sacred Tradition, or had ceased to be a Sacred Tradition, until it became know, or was rediscovered. Right?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yet, the doctrine of the immaculate conception was not a Sacred Tradition, or had ceased to be a Sacred Tradition, until it became know, or was rediscovered. Right?

🤷
Click to expand...
The doctrine is in Genesis and Luke. Was it defined in response to something?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
For wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.

(Socrates, Theaetetus, 155)

P7:

Keep on asking yourself those good questions, but don’t forget to share what you learn!

I’ll read your reply and carefully consider it, later and let you know what i wonder.

👍
Click to expand...
Soc,

if I get it, you want me to answer myself, although this question was for you:

*Since we previously agreed with each other and Socrates, that a text has to be defended, , and since such a defender must be one, or unitary ( otherwise we’d go round and round to find the best defender any time, I ask :

Can the Defender , the Guardian of Sacred Scripture .ever be my self, or a denomination born _______________ ( fill the blank with a date, place, founder …). ?*

Therefore here is my answer :):

I expect the Defender chosen by the Holy Spirit to be permanent.

Therefore I cannot identify it with a person, a limited group of people, or a modern denomination.

I expect the Defender to have a voice and to be available when looked for.

Therefore I cannot identify the Defender with the “invisible catholic church” .

.

I WONDER whether such a response could be considered WONDER inspiring 🙂
.

In Christ.
 
pneuma07 said:
Soc,

if I get it, you want me to answer myself, although this question was for you:

*Since we previously agreed with each other and Socrates, that a text has to be defended, , and since such a defender must be one, or unitary ( otherwise we’d go round and round to find the best defender any time, I ask :

Can the Defender , the Guardian of Sacred Scripture .ever be my self, or a denomination born _______________ ( fill the blank with a date, place, founder …). ?*

Therefore here is my answer :):

I expect the Defender chosen by the Holy Spirit to be permanent.

Therefore I cannot identify it with a person, a limited group of people, or a modern denomination.

I expect the Defender to have a voice and to be available when looked for.

Therefore I cannot identify the Defender with the “invisible catholic church” .

I WONDER whether such a response could be considered WONDER inspiring 🙂

In Christ.
Click to expand...


P7:

Let’s take another look at Socrates’ thoughts on misunderstanding written works: I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)

What he is saying is not that everything everyone reads can be misunderstood. Rather, he is saying that there are those who don’t know enough about what they are reading to understand. That’s the meaning i get from his words, "And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. "

Now this brings up an important point, and one best introduced with an illustration: I don’t know if you knew, but there are two native tribes on Gilligan’s (A.K.A. Prodigal’s) Island. The Catunkoin and the Protaroohoo. The Protaroohoo are constantly at war with the Catunkoin, claiming that they are the rightful inheritors of the island, which was given to them by their Deity. The Catunkoin, who worship the same Deity (though have some minor differences in their understanding of his nature), say they are the rightful owner’s of the island, for they had always been there. (Actually, there is good evidence to suggest that both had always inhabited the island, though the Catunkoin always had a more visible presence.)

I spent some time living with the Protaroohoo, learning their ways. They danced around a fire that was always kept burning which they called the Great Spirit of Truth, one of the many names for their Deity. They had three totem poles placed at equal distances around this fire, each representing servants of their Deity. One resembling a dolphin, one resembling a graceful tropical bird, and one resembling a snake. This tribe appeared to have no one chieftain as their leader, but had a great number of shamans. None of these shamans claimed superiority over the other, but instead taught that they were all equal in the sight of their Deity, who showed no favoritism. In fact, any tribe member, they said, has the potential of becoming a shaman himself, if only he seek wisdom from his Deity, who is said to give such generously, without finding fault.

I was quite smitten with the simplicity and loving community which was the Protaroohoo, and was amazed at how well they got along despite the fact that they had no leader to keep them in line. Their Deity was their leader, they said. And i entertained the idea of becoming one of them myself, until i wandered to the western side of the island.

There i met the Catunkoin, who also danced, but not around a great campfire. Instead, they danced around their Great Chief, who sat on an ancient stone throne, which they said was the seat of Chiefs. Around this throne were three totems, one carved in the shape of a dolphin, one in the shape of a giant turtle, and one in the shape of a chimpanzee. They appeared to worship their Great Chief, who never left his throne, and from time to time uttered words they said came from the mouth of their Deity. All of the Great Chiefs, for as long as they lived on the island, were said to have this power to speak their God’s words from this throne, which gave him such power.

Now the names of the totems of the Catunkoin i found interesting. When translated, they are roughly this:
  • Dolphin - named Words of God
  • Giant turtle - named Tradition of God’s Chiefs
  • Chimp - Teaching of God’s Cheifs
The names of the totems of the Protaroohoo are roughly translated so:
  • Dolphin - God’s Words
  • Tropical Bird - God’s Spirit
  • Snake - God’s Wisdom
Now if you have not guessed, the Protaroohoo are Protestants, and the their totems are the three methods on which they rely to discern the truth from God:
  • The Scriptures
  • Their faculties reason
  • The Holy Spirit
And the Catunkoin are Catholics, and their totems are the three means in which they trust to discern the truth from God:
  • The Scriptures
  • Their Traditions
  • The Teaching of their Magisterium
The reason for the illustration is that i like illustrations! But i also wanted to propose that examining the differences between how Catholics determine the truth and how Protestants discern it might help me decide who has the more reliable method. So if you are willing, let’s compare1. reason with tradition
and2. the Holy Spirit with the Magisterium

Please tell me why you believe tradition is a more reliable method of obtaining truth than reason, or why relying on the guidance of the Magisterium is a better way to find the truth than relying on the Holy Spirit apart from the Magisterium.
 
Soc in Christ,

Here is some more food for thought concerning Church authority.

In Matthew 18:15-18 it says:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Click to expand...
These words were spoken to the apostles subsequent to Jesus’s statements to Peter in Matthew 16:18 concerning the establishment of his Church. This seems to be a further endorsement of Church authority by Jesus. Jesus also speaks of how he was sent by the Father with “all authority on heaven and earth.”[See Matt 28:18]

The very next thing that Jesus says is:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo,** I am with you always, to the close of the age.**”
Click to expand...
[Matt 28:19-20]

Apparently, Jesus will personally remain with the Church until the end of time. Jesus will protect his Church. Jesus will prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against his church.

Jesus also says this to the apostles in John 20:21
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
Click to expand...
Authority is not only given to Jesus but Jesus gives this authority to the apostles and to “the Church.” The logical question to ask next is: What did the apostles do with this authority? Did they give authority to others? Clearly, the elders that were at the Council of Jerusalem had authority. We also know that there were at least two additional apostles chosen by the remaining apostles subsequent to Pentecost. Scripture also indicates that there were others that were given power and authority through the laying on of hands.

We know from Eph 1:22-23 and Eph 5:23 that the Church is the body of Christ, the fullness of Christ, and that Jesus, the Head, has physical and spiritual aspects, so the body, the Church has the same. These aspects of the Church do not end with the death of members. The Church continues with these features and characteristics even after the death of the last apostle. So did they give their authority to others?

We learn the answer to this question from the action of the elders at the Council of Jerusalem. We learn the answer to this question from the appointment additional apostles. We learn the answer to this question in the appointment of elders. We learn the answer to this question from the actions of Paul as well when he makes reference to the appointment of Timothy as a bishop through the laying on of hands. Likewise, Paul says the following:

2 Corinthians 1:19-22
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preached among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No; but in him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God. But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
Click to expand...
Philippians 1:1
PAUL AND Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Click to expand...
There is more scripture on this subject…I’ll try to touch on them when I get more time.

God bless.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
P7:

Let’s take another look at Socrates’ thoughts on misunderstanding written works: I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)

What he is saying is not that everything everyone reads can be misunderstood. Rather, he is saying that there are those who don’t know enough about what they are reading to understand. That’s the meaning i get from his words, "And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. "

Now this brings up an important point, and one best introduced with an illustration: I don’t know if you knew, but there are two native tribes on Gilligan’s (A.K.A. Prodigal’s) Island. The Catunkoin and the Protaroohoo. The Protaroohoo are constantly at war with the Catunkoin, claiming that they are the rightful inheritors of the island, which was given to them by their Deity. The Catunkoin, who worship the same Deity (though have some minor differences in their understanding of his nature), say they are the rightful owner’s of the island, for they had always been there. (Actually, there is good evidence to suggest that both had always inhabited the island, though the Catunkoin always had a more visible presence.)

I spent some time living with the Protaroohoo, learning their ways. They danced around a fire that was always kept burning which they called the Great Spirit of Truth, one of the many names for their Deity. They had three totem poles placed at equal distances around this fire, each representing servants of their Deity. One resembling a dolphin, one resembling a graceful tropical bird, and one resembling a snake. This tribe appeared to have no one chieftain as their leader, but had a great number of shamans. None of these shamans claimed superiority over the other, but instead taught that they were all equal in the sight of their Deity, who showed no favoritism. In fact, any tribe member, they said, has the potential of becoming a shaman himself, if only he seek wisdom from his Deity, who is said to give such generously, without finding fault.

I was quite smitten with the simplicity and loving community which was the Protaroohoo, and was amazed at how well they got along despite the fact that they had no leader to keep them in line. Their Deity was their leader, they said. And i entertained the idea of becoming one of them myself, until i wandered to the western side of the island.

There i met the Catunkoin, who also danced, but not around a great campfire. Instead, they danced around their Great Chief, who sat on an ancient stone throne, which they said was the seat of Chiefs. Around this throne were three totems, one carved in the shape of a dolphin, one in the shape of a giant turtle, and one in the shape of a chimpanzee. They appeared to worship their Great Chief, who never left his throne, and from time to time uttered words they said came from the mouth of their Deity. All of the Great Chiefs, for as long as they lived on the island, were said to have this power to speak their God’s words from this throne, which gave him such power.

Now the names of the totems of the Catunkoin i found interesting. When translated, they are roughly this:
  • Dolphin - named Words of God
  • Giant turtle - named Tradition of God’s Chiefs
  • Chimp - Teaching of God’s Cheifs
The names of the totems of the Protaroohoo are roughly translated so:
  • Dolphin - God’s Words
  • Tropical Bird - God’s Spirit
  • Snake - God’s Wisdom
Now if you have not guessed, the Protaroohoo are Protestants, and the their totems are the three methods on which they rely to discern the truth from God:
  • The Scriptures
  • Their faculties reason
  • The Holy Spirit
And the Catunkoin are Catholics, and their totems are the three means in which they trust to discern the truth from God:
  • The Scriptures
  • Their Traditions
  • The Teaching of their Magisterium
The reason for the illustration is that i like illustrations! But i also wanted to propose that examining the differences between how Catholics determine the truth and how Protestants discern it might help me decide who has the more reliable method. So if you are willing, let’s compare1. reason with tradition
and2. the Holy Spirit with the Magisterium

Please tell me why you believe tradition is a more reliable method of obtaining truth than reason, or why relying on the guidance of the Magisterium is a better way to find the truth than relying on the Holy Spirit apart from the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Dear Soc,

as you can imagine I did enjoy the illustration. :)But for one detail.
It seems I live in a different island, since I have never met Catunkoinism 🤷

More specifically I have never lived among people who:
  • Worship their Great Chief :eek:
  • Exclude reason from the way you have to discern truth :eek:
  • Rely on “their traditions” ( that would mean traditions of men), making them equal to Scriptures :eek:
Do you see us like that ? Are you seriously considering to join such people ?
Code: 
I would not. :)
In Christ
P7
 
pneuma07 said:
… I started asking myself:
"Why had the Catholic Church, in a protestant view, not been understanding that Bible which she would deliver to the reformers - which in a protestant view is perspicuous - for more than a millennium ?

I supposed this could have something to do with the origin of the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
My exploration came up like this:

STEP 1 Let’s say in XVI (or VI for that matter ) century western Europe I come to believe and propound a doctrine, or a whole doctrinary vision, which is at odds with catholic teaching.

STEP 2. I maintain and preach that my doctrine is rooted in Scripture ( and possibly has some alleged precedents in the fathers). This is quite necessary to my position, in order to be able to answer the obvious question: “how do you know, and, more specifically, how do you know better than the Church ?”

STEP 3 I then necessarily conclude that you can understand Scripture outside the CONtext of the living Tradition of the Church and of her teaching. This amounts to the fact that, at this point, I have become a champion of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.

STEP 4 Now I start teaching that you have to approach Scripture outside and against the Catholic Church, thus beginning to set a new CONtext, albeit just a negative one.
Let’s note that this further step is again necessary, if I want people to come to share my doctrine of which in STEP 1.

STEP 5 A new positive CONtext to properly read or hear Scripture is proposed by myself or by my successors.

It is so in STEP 3 that I propose the “perspicuity of Scripture”, by preaching that it is so clear that it does not need the CONtext of the living Tradition and the magisterium of the Church.
In STEP 4, nevertheless, I do put a first constraint of mine, which, let’s repeat, is necessary from my point of view in order to get it right in STEP 1, which is the origin of the whole matter.

Thus, STEP 4 is somehow common to any body which comes directly or indirectly from the Reformation.
We can consider it a common kernel of the prescriptions on the “perspicuity of Scripture”.

STEP 5, on the contrary, which is the positive part of the “new CONtext” is where the variety of definitions and prescriptions come up.

With a range from the most “individualistic-minded” wing (CONtext is my self) to the most “corporate-minded” one ( CONtext is my denomination).

Consider please that here the conceptual construction of the “invisible catholic church” is of no use here.

Since we previously agreed with each other and Socrates, that a text has to be defended, , and since such a defender must be one, or unitary ( otherwise we’d go round and round to find the best defender any time, I ask :

Can the Defender , the Guardian of Sacred Scripture .ever be my self, or a denomination born _______________ ( fill the blank with a date, place, founder …). ?

In Christ
P7
Click to expand...
P7:

I don’t want to not address your question; just have not had time until now. I agree with your proposed steps. I believe the Protestant argument for step 3 is not only that it is so clear it does not need the Tradition nor the Magisterim, but that the Tradition and the Magisterium have been deceived, at some point, and a reform is necessary to restore the interpretation that the Tradition and Magisterium used to have, as cited by early Church Fathers. Hence, it’s not outside the context of the old Tradition and the old Magisterium (which used to have the correct interpretation). Rather it’s outside the context of the new Tradition and the new Magisterium. In other words, the Tradition and Magisterium have evolved in thought to the point of self-deception.

The Protestant argument for step 4, it seems to me, is that the context is not new, but old. It’s a restoration of the true context of the early Church that was later abandoned by the Tradition and Magisterium. Hence it is the original context that Christ intended.

Regarding step 5, i’m unsure what you mean by “variety of definitions and prescriptions” of new context. The context all Protestants appear to have in common is that of reason (using arts and sciences of logic and hermeneutics) and revelation (praying for and relying on the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth).

You ask:
Can the Defender , the Guardian of Sacred Scripture .ever be my self, or a denomination born _______________ ( fill the blank with a date, place, founder …). ?

The Protestant answer: No, not myself, but my reason, as guided by the Holy Spirit. This is why i propose, in my previous reply, that we compare
  1. reason with tradition
and2. the Holy Spirit with the Magisterium
Now i’m willing to consider that the Protestant answer is wrong, but the only way it can be wrong is if i am correct in my conclusion that Sacred Scripture is ambiguous regarding important doctrines. Do you believe it is?
Also, if you think it wise, i think we should explore the proposed differences between Protestants and Catholics: Please tell me why you believe that when reason tells one that Tradition is deceived that one should ignore his reason and trust Tradition? Please tell me why you believe that the Magisterium is a necessary channel for the Holy Spirit and then one cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit apart from the Magisterium.
 
pneuma07 said:
Dear Soc,

as you can imagine I did enjoy the illustration. :)But for one detail.
It seems I live in a different island, since I have never met Catunkoinism 🤷

More specifically I have never lived among people who:
  • Worship their Great Chief :eek:
  • Exclude reason from the way you have to discern truth :eek:
  • Rely on “their traditions” ( that would mean traditions of men), making them equal to Scriptures :eek:
Do you see us like that ? Are you seriously considering to join such people ?
Code: 
I would not. :)
In Christ
P7
Click to expand...
That’s why i’m here–to learn!
  • Worship the Pope? No. That’s why i wrote that the natives *appeared *to worship their Great Chief.
  • **Exclude reason? **No. But where reason contradicts current Tradition and current teaching of the Magisterium, are you not required to believe your thinking to be wrong?
  • **Rely on Traditions of men rather than the current Tradition of the Church? **No. Rely on Sacred Tradition above reason and personal revelation received from the Holy Spirit? Yes.
There was a time when i was a partisan a Protestant as they come. I believed there was not way i could be deceived, for the Holy Spirit would protect me from such. But then a Protestant pointed out how i was. That was an eye opener. Rather than doubt the Holy Spirit’s ability to protect and guide, i doubted my ability to accept and hear. What had i done wrong to be led into heresy?

I then began rereading Plato’s Socratic Dialogs and learned from Socrates that he always considered the possibility that he, and any self-proclaimed wise man he met, might be self-deceived. Reason, he believed, was the shield against such an evil state. Yet, Socrates was deceived about how knowledge is obtained and what transpires after death. Reason alone could not keep him from being self-deceived. What Socrates was lacking was revelation.

**My conclusion: **I need to not trust the Bible alone, but also trust (and develop) my reason, and continually pray and seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit. On these three i rely above all. That being said, if you can help me see that these three show me that the Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church is trustworthy, then i will no longer have a three-legged stool, but a five legged one. As long as all five legs are sturdy, i’m sure it will hold me up!
 
Thing said:
You did’nt read it? :crying:
Click to expand...
Yes, i see. Sorry.

:o

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(Genesis 3:15)

Nothing about an immaculate conception there that i can see. If i’m missing something, please let me know.

The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

(Luke 1:28)
Cannot see an immaculate conception there, either.

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yes, i see. Sorry.

:o

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(Genesis 3:15)

Nothing about an immaculate conception there that i can see. If i’m missing something, please let me know.

The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

(Luke 1:28)
Cannot see an immaculate conception there, either.

🤷
Click to expand...
None so blind as those who will not see.

Mary is the woman.
The serpent is satan.
Marys’ seed is Jesus.
God puts enmity between satan and Jesus.
God puts enmity between satan and Mary.
If Mary were like the fallen Eve, with a fallen humainty, there would not be enmity between her and satan.

Luke records the angel as saying Hail full of grace… a fallen Eve is not full of grace.
Mary was redeemed before she even consented to carry Jesus in her womb.
She was ‘full of grace’ from conception - when her soul was joined to her body.
 
Pax said:
Soc in Christ,

It’s seems clear to me that Barnabas was an apostle before the death of James by way of the chronology in the Book of Acts. You can check that by simply looking at the quotes we have discussed.

You might also examine all that Paul says to Timothy concerning doctrine. Tonight I’ll post some things along the lines of doctrine that would indicate that it is not just the 12 apostles at work on doctrine.

God bless.
Click to expand...
It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

(Acts 12)

The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: “Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.”

(Acts 14)

In the chronology of events recorded by the ancient historian Luke, James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem prior to Barnabas being called an Apostle (Acts 14 follows Acts 12). Either your view or mine might be correct, however, since Luke does not cite the time or place when Barnabas was first recognized as an Apostle. Therefore, it is probable, but not conclusive, that there were only 11 Apostles at the time Barnabas was first recognized as the 12th.
 
Thing said:
None so blind as those who will not see.

Mary is the woman.
The serpent is satan.
Marys’ seed is Jesus.
God puts enmity between satan and Jesus.
God puts enmity between satan and Mary.
If Mary were like the fallen Eve, with a fallen humainty, there would not be enmity between her and satan.

Luke records the angel as saying Hail full of grace… a fallen Eve is not full of grace.
Mary was redeemed before she even consented to carry Jesus in her womb.
She was ‘full of grace’ from conception - when her soul was joined to her body.
Click to expand...
en⋅mi⋅ty

/ˈɛnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngmɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngti/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled [en-mi-tee]
–noun, plural -ties. a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/enmity

I’m assuming you and i and the Pope are members of fallen humanity. Are you saying Satan has no hostility toward, or hatred of, any of us?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
en⋅mi⋅ty

/ˈɛnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngmɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngti/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled [en-mi-tee]
–noun, plural -ties. a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/enmity

I’m assuming you and i and the Pope are members of fallen humanity. Are you saying Satan has no hostility toward, or hatred of, any of us?

🤷
Click to expand...
You mean he has no enmity towards Jesus and the woman sometimes. Its prophetic and its specific about two people and an event as a result of the fall of man.
  • You know one of the former Archbishops of Canterbury, (the head of the Church of England after the Queen), said that he did not believe that Jesus walked on water. It was a story, thats all.
    i.e. If you do not wish to believe something, you will, considering the above, always find a way not to believe it. And the converse is true also.
    Catholicism, in my experience, holds generally the opposite approach - in that it tries its best to explore and see into the truths which have been revealed instead of withdrawing from them for whatever motivation or lack of interest or energy.
Just a thought.
 
Thing said:
You mean he has no enmity towards Jesus and the woman sometimes. Its prophetic and its specific about two people and an event as a result of the fall of man.
  • You know one of the former Archbishops of Canterbury, (the head of the Church of England after the Queen), said that he did not believe that Jesus walked on water. It was a story, thats all.
    i.e. If you do not wish to believe something, you will, considering the above, always find a way not to believe it. And the converse is true also.
    Catholicism, in my experience, holds generally the opposite approach - in that it tries its best to explore and see into the truths which have been revealed instead of withdrawing from them for whatever motivation or lack of interest or energy.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
I mean to ask this: Are you saying Satan has no hostility toward, or hatred of, any of us?
 
Thing said:
… - You know one of the former Archbishops of Canterbury, (the head of the Church of England after the Queen), said that he did not believe that Jesus walked on water. It was a story, thats all. i.e. If you do not wish to believe something, you will, considering the above, always find a way not to believe it. And the converse is true also. Catholicism, in my experience, holds generally the opposite approach - in that it tries its best to explore and see into the truths which have been revealed instead of withdrawing from them for whatever motivation or lack of interest or energy.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between the Archbishop of Canterbury and me: For him, it was not that he couldn’t believe, it’s that he wouldn’t believe. For me, the converse is true: It’s not that i won’t believe, it’s that i cannot believe. I can only believe what i know is true. That’s why i’m asking. I want to know whether it’s true. Specifically, i want to know whether the Catholic Church is an authority i can trust to reveal the truth to me.

From what i gather from your remarks, Thing, you are into partisan religion. You are convinced you are right, it appears. Me, i’m into non-partisan religion. I’m not a partisan who is knows he has the truth; i’m a philosopher who is seeking the truth i know i don’t know. As Socrates said:
Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)

Just a thought.

🙂
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
I mean to ask this: Are you saying Satan has no hostility toward, or hatred of, any of us?
Click to expand...
You have included ‘us’ in with a set of two people to whom satan has enmity towards. One of whom is Jesus. Is there sometimes enmity between Jesus and satan and sometimes not, or have you placed yourself and ourselves in the wrong set?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top