C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
He’s supposed to be the first Pope, so he would be of higher authority.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
No, this is not true. Both Peter and Paul had Apostolic Authority. They had different gifts. Yet neither of them had the authority to go against the Teachings. Peter himself pronouced (infallibly) the truth at the council of Jerusalem. Yet, when he went to Antioch, he did not act according to that infallible truth. This is an excellent example of how it is that the gift of infallibility can work through a person, and yet that person is not impeccable.
B
BMSODM
Guest
Blessings***
What happen to your reply for post 461 Chris? Its ok to be wrong Chris and its even more ok to admit when your wrong. It produces Humility…It makes us simple and small
As for the comment above,So! Like RealC said Jesus is a higher authority then the Apostles. Why wouldn’t He just have written the Bible Himself? That sure would have made much more sense. Expecially if the written Word was the says all about Christianity. Or Maybe just maybe its not
Could it mean the oral Word was just as important? Could it mean that what Jesus did was just as important as what He said?
If anything It shows how God uses the small for the Jobs of the Big. It shows how the dumb an uneducated are more easlily exaulted probably because of there lack of knowledge that usually produces humility. This is why most saints become saints to begin with. If you ever take the time to research them you will see that they all were basically nobody’s. They were the smallest of the small. They were simple people with simple minds.
Grace unto You***
K
KingAlfred
Guest
I follow the example of saints, but I don’t pray to them.
B
BMSODM
Guest
Blessings KingA***
If your stament was true then you would infact pray to them because The saints prayed to other saints, so you might be following some of there examples but your not following all there examples…
Peace****
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: The question was, “Why do YOU find Peter’s actions to be more important than Paul’s”. So is YOUR anwer, Peter is the leader.
P
Peter_J
Guest
So perhaps this …
is a case of someone putting words in your mouth (or “in your brain”, to be more precise). Unfortunately, that happens a lot on the internet, and there doesn’t seem to be too much we can do to prevent it. (Yet another reason that I caution people not to believe everything they read on the internet.)
“supposed to be” according to whom? I think you are putting words in the Church’s mouth.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Thanks for the friendly reminder (the leaking part), I do appreciate that and keep those reminders coming when necessary.
A side note, that wasn’t anti-Catholic, that was me getting upset over someone calling the Word of God nothing more than a “blue-print” poems and tales…anyone who loves Gods Word should be offended…it’s still offensive now that I’m thinking of it again…but remind me if I come across to you as anti-Catholic; I trust your intuition on the subject.
G
guanophore
Guest
I saw that post too, and that was a little “out there” for me too. I do agree, though, that scripture was not intended to be a blueprint for the faith. It concisely summarizes many important aspects,and makes vague references to others. It was not intended to be a manual of the faith, per se. It was the teaching of the Apostles that was the standard of practice. We see this reflected in Scripture.Thanks for the friendly reminder (the leaking part), I do appreciate that and keep those reminders coming when necessary.
A side note, that wasn’t anti-Catholic, that was me getting upset over someone calling the Word of God nothing more than a “blue-print” poems and tales…anyone who loves Gods Word should be offended…it’s still offensive now that I’m thinking of it again…but remind me if I come across to you as anti-Catholic; I trust your intuition on the subject.
Acts 2:42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
This is one of the first references to Sacred Tradition, which includes the Apostles Teaching, the way gatherings are conducted, the Liturgies of the Church, and the prayers.
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
Who cares if it is in the Bible? A Christian!
**
Hi Non,
You are a liar! freesmileys.org/smileys/char048.gif**
PROOF:
NonCatholic:
poems and tales…anyone who loves Gods Word should be offended…it’s still offensive now that I’m thinking of it again.
Realcatholicgk:
. They are worship documents, tales, stories, Poems, prayers collected by the Jewish and Catholic worshipers to help them understand God.
** Now did the devil; blind you to what I actually said? Or is it your personal habit to lie? I advise you not lie about me again. This is your first and final warning.:tsktsk:
I love you and respect you. Do the same! No apology needed I forgave you before I read what you wrote. That is the real christian thing to do!
You are anti-Catholic if you insist on insulting our beliefs by saying Jesus’ Mother is 'dead". I freely admit that I am anti-Protestant. Any religion attempting to steal souls from Jesus is my enemy. Not the people but the counterfeit organizations that they follow. I love anyone who proclaims a love for Jesus It is just the lies that people are taught against His real church that makes me angry. Not the people themselves. You can not hate ignorance, you can only atempt to teach so that the ignorance is removed. I love Protestants I pray for all of you daily. I hope and pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth so that you could enjoy the fulliness of Christ.
Reference Baptism you falsely claimed that immersion was the correct way! That is not true! It is your only your opinion. Some of the Protestant denominations do teach that around 23,000 of the 61,ooo mayb e a little less. hard to keep up with your changing beliefs! However, Most Christians do not care if Baptism by sprinkling with water is in the bible. Wake up! The majority of Christians do it that way buddy! Do you believe that all those Christians aren’t really “Christians” and only your foolish little group is? That would be too precious!
I personally love the Bible. I and most christians read and understand the bible for what it is. We do not worship it like some idol! We also don’t rewrite it all the time to please our needs and preverted desires! Our people were the authors.
guan can agree with you it isn’t the first time she has done such foolishness. She is good people, trying to help, but should not agree wirh lies! Only Pharasees and Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura would ever care for such foolishness. **
You have another Gospel…nothing more to be said there.
**
How about NonCatholic has been proven a Liar? That works for me!**
The Church I attend exposits the Bible verse by verse, we Just finished Mark, after a little over a year and have now started Luke.
**Yea, using a corrupt bible and interpeting it yourselves, to teach yourselves lies.OK! Of course, since it was the Catholic church herself who - through the power of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon her by Christ - promulgated the book today call the Bible, the Catholic faith does not derive its authority from the “scripture alone.” Indeed, we only know which books make up the inspired and inerrant New Testament because sixteen hundred years ago Pope St. Damasus I discerned them.You can not trust in the authority oif the Bible without trusting in the Catholic church’s decision. All other versions are counterfeit and altered, corrupted and distorted verasions of the truth which can be called LIES!
While the Catholic Church has never held to the doctrine that the Bible ought to be our sole authority of faith, anyone who does hold to that belief will have difficulty denying the Church’s teachings, since the Bible testifies to them so compellingly if read correctly.
Do you actually think only Protestants stude the bible? We have studied it for almost 2,000 years. The correct Bible, using authorized interpretations so as not to be fooled by Satan and his followers. **
Click on: Protestant Bible
We take the Lords Supper very seriously, but we don’t have an alter, since that was abolished at the cross when God rent the temple from top to bottom exposing the Holy of Holies…
** We don’t either, we have an “altar” ! How can you have a “sacrifice” without an altar? Or are your gatherings called fellowship or potlucks? What do you do, drink grape juice and eat oreros? How can you possibly be serious about the Lord’s Supper without having the Lord there and watch His sacrifice on the cross occur? His real body on the altar as the final sacrifice demanded by the father in attonement for all sins? No altar no sacrifice, just a fellowship! Does your corrupt version of the bible actually say God did away with the altar? What verse? **
but then again that was probably one of those foolish tales you spoke of…Blasphemer!
**
Not only are you a liar, but your own word should be tatoo across your forehead for all the world to see for what you said about Mary, the Mother of Our Lord and Savior being dead." You can blasphem against her a person but no one can blasphemer against a book of writings. To even think that is against God’s commandment against false idols! Try to be a upright person even if you don’t want to be a Catholic/real christian.**
N
NonCatholic
Guest
You are big on insults, and little on substance. I stand corrected on the blue print aspect, but the rest of that description comes across a demeaning to the Word of God. Nothing that catches me off guard, because I expect that.
Makes me wonder what in the world kind of trouble or sin you got yourself into a some point in your life…again, this is an out loud thought and do not want an answer.
You can learn a lot about etiquette from guanophore.
We do the Lords supper “In remembrance of Me”, just as scripture and the Apostles followed did. I know by your law I am anathema. None of the people that came to Jesus on the Bread of Life sermon, came and asked for a taste of His flesh and to drink of His blood…because they knew it was a metaphor. Just like the Samaritan woman at the well did not try to drink Jesus.
The renting of the temple by God exposing the Holy of Holies was the end of the OT sacrifices and the beginning of the New Covenant, where those who worship and believe in Him will be saved.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Why would the poems, etc. offend you? I understand his manner and choice of words is offending you and I’m not trying to change your mind on that, but he wasn’t saying the Bible wasn’t the Bible. A poem (Song of Solomon) is a way of using words to communicate, so is a parable. Is that really what is setting you off or is it just the manner of the posts?
Okay, we know why you think they didn’t ask that, but why did so many of them leave upset by what He was saying , and why didn’t he correct them.
I’ve also heard someone put it this way, and although it’s not necessarily a foolproof argument, it is interesting: Jesus said many times that He WAS something: I am the vine, I am the light, etc. He only said once that something WAS Him. “This bread is my flesh”.
But the apostles, much better examples than the woman at the well, DID try to to drink Jesus’ blood, right after He said it was His blood, and they succeeded.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
continued - ran out of edit time.
Read Hewbrews 7,8 and 9 and look at the Levi priesthood in relation to Jesus, from the order of Melchizedek, then goes into the what specifically makes them different…One problem with the Levi priesthood is that they kept dying, whereas the Melchizedek priesthood was everlasting without beginning. The Levites had to keep on sacrificing animals to cover sin for himself and the rest of Israel, but when God made the perfect sacrifice, Jesus; there were no more sacrifices needed because that one sacrifice paid the penalty for all sins to those who believe in the only begotten son, the Lord Jesus…this is why Scripture states that Jesus SAT at the right hand of God, something the Levites could never do because their work was never done.
Read Hewbrews 7,8 and 9 and look at the Levi priesthood in relation to Jesus, from the order of Melchizedek, then goes into the what specifically makes them different…One problem with the Levi priesthood is that they kept dying, whereas the Melchizedek priesthood was everlasting without beginning. The Levites had to keep on sacrificing animals to cover sin for himself and the rest of Israel, but when God made the perfect sacrifice, Jesus; there were no more sacrifices needed because that one sacrifice paid the penalty for all sins to those who believe in the only begotten son, the Lord Jesus…this is why Scripture states that Jesus SAT at the right hand of God, something the Levites could never do because their work was never done.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Hi Bookgirl32, the quote above is what I refer you to in it entire context…he/she trashed the Bible, should bother any Christian…that’s all I am saying. Nothing wrong with Psalms or proverbs, stories or tales, but the message, context and wording is offensive.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I get what you’re saying, and how the WORDING offended you, and it’s hard to look past that. But I’ll say something respectfully: I believe that Martin Luther added the word “alone” to the Bible where it hadn’t been for the previous 1500 years since it was written down (notice I say written down, not revealed
). Does that offend you that I believe that?I thought that I read (could be wrong, it’s late) that you referred to Mary as Jesus’ dead mother? If you did (or if anyone did, hypothetically), would I have just as much right to be offended by someone saying that b/c it offended my beliefs as you do?
Also, feel free to ignore this post b/c I’m in an internet coma, need to go to bed and can’t get out of my chair, and however much sense my post MIGHT make I’m also just procrastinating.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Oh, yeah, and what about the second part of my earlier post?
N
NonCatholic
Guest
“Do this in remembrance of me”
The context of the passage is the key to the understanding of the single verse. It is a salvation message and he made a comparison prior to that concerning the manna that fell out of the sky and fed the Israelites in the desert, no I am the real Bread of Life, eat my flesh and drink my blood and you will live forever, it metaphoric, just as the other examples you listed above. In other words come to Me and believe, I am the true manna that comes from heaven and gives eternal life.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I guess I’m not seeing why what you’re saying above couldn’t be the history leading up to the culmination of how God planned to do things? Of course He was tying it to the manna that fell out of the sky, as a sign of the bread of life that He would be. There were many signs of the New Covenant in the old. Just b/c you can tie these themes together does not mean he was speaking metaphorically. And I’m confused about the part in red, are you saying “no” as if He didn’t say this? “Eat my flesh and drink my blood”? Of course He is the true manna, why are you limiting Him to being metaphorical when He didn’t claim this Himself?
And you didn’t answer my first question, about the people leaving Him, and Him not calling them back or explaining. How do you interpret that? Why were they bothered by this (as the Bible says they were)? If they were interested enough in listening to Him, and they were believing Him up to a point, and He’d already said he was the Vine and the Light and the Door and they’d had no previous problem, then why did this metaphor bother them? Why didn’t He call them back and say, “This is a metaphor, stop!” Were they walking away b/c they didn’t believe in anything He’d said at all?
He let disciples leave b/c of a misunderstanding?
B
BMSODM
Guest
Blessings NonC***
You forgot the rest of that verse…
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body." - 1 Corinthians
Let me pose a question to you. If a man trys to stab a picture of president Bush and succeed’s would he be guilty of murder? and would he get the death penilty? I think we both know the answer is no… We cant logically expect that someone would be guilty of such a charge for killing a symbol of someone. And to think they would get the death penilty is kinda of a joke, wouldnt you agree?
So wouldn’t logic say that the same should happen in the above verse. How can someone get eternal death for being guilty of the body and blood of Jesus if in fact its just a symbol of Him? Wouldnt that mean that anyone who destroyed a cross or any other picture of Jesus would be damned to Hell.
And also as bookgirl said, which I notice your avoiding, why wouldnt Jesus correct the ones who walked away from His teaching? He has always corrected in all His other teachings if they misunderstood Him. "“The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’ [Jn 6:60 .] The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. ‘Will you also go away?’: [Jn 6:67 .] the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has ‘the words of eternal life’ [In 6:68.] and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.”
Jesus lost many disciples when He stated that they would have to eat His Body and drink His Blood (John 6:60, 66 ). Yet He did not “call back” these disciples stating “I was just speaking figuratively.” He let them leave. Why? If He had been speaking figuratively, wouldn’t He have called them back and “explained” the doctrine?
Here is an example where the Catholic Church rightly takes these passages literally while many non-Catholic Christian denominations take it figuratively because it would be too hard of a doctrine to accept otherwise just as it was for the disciples who left Christ. Think about it brother, this is the missing link. This is the key to all understandings. You need this in order to advance your Wisdom of the fullness of the Gospel…
Peace***
G
guanophore
Guest
Certainly there is one deceiver of the brethren that is always at work sowing dissention and confusion. No doubt. However, I do agree that Scritpure is not intended to be a blueprint - or maybe only those directions that God gave as to how to built the temple and the ark.
I would add to your list of the type of literature that is contained, especiallly in the NT, the letters, which I don’t believe are supposed to be a “blueprint” either, but are addressed to certain churches about certain pastoral and doctrinal problems.
I do have a suspicion that he has given a disingenuous presentation of himself here. He implies that he is saved in some posts, but in others, asks questions that may be just for the purpose of trolling with Catholics. It seems unlikely that a Sola Scriptura person would also wonder if he is “saved” since the doctrines on that point are largely developed from scripture, of which he seems to have a very high regard.
Oh, but I do! Most especially when it is combined with hatred, bigotry, and prejudice.
I agree that this is the appropriate and Christian response to ignorance, as well as some other sins, such as the sin of abortion.
The only part about which I have agreement is that I would add some categories to your library description of scripture. Yes, it is poetry, songs, history, etc. There are also love stories, correspondence, apocrophal literature (visions) and maybe a few that don’t fit anywhere! You have to admit the Songs of Solomon are pretty risque in places!
I think this point is lost on most Sola Scriptura people. I have had many of them on this forum state that the doctrine of SS “presupposes a canon”. How can that be? Because SS cannot be found in the Bible!
Ok, GK, but take a deep breath, ok? Don’t forget about blessing those who persecute you.
- Status