T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Any time!
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, it’s not fact.
It is (as Elizium himself stated) an attempt to demonstrate that since Scripture itself does not contain every word that Jesus spoke, any attempt to claim that if He didn’t specifically mention a Sin “In Scripture” means He never addressed it at all. . .is poppycock.
Can’t help but notice that you refer to Christ as “Jeshua”. I see Messianic Jews use the term though they tend to spell it Yeshua. . .and some of the ‘nondemons’ who go so far as to teach of “Jeshua ben Joseph” and only talk of moral teachings and the "divine within’ stuff. . . I’m not criticizing or anything, it’s just that “Jeshua” is probably the least common name I have ever seen given for Jesus Christ. . .
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Actually, the OP CONDEMNED the 'specious reasoning" (his words) of those who attempted to argue that if Jesus ‘in Scripture’ did not specifically condemn a sin, by name, He didn’t really consider that action a sin.
And here’s another point: We consider Scripture to be God-breathed and inerrant, correct? We consider it the written word of God, right?
Therefore, any Scriptural passage is, in effect, coming from Jesus. Isn’t it? He may be inspiring given men (like St Paul) to speak on a topic, but what St Paul says is what Jesus considers as truth. Isn’t that correct?
That being the case, why attempt to limit only the "red words’ that Jesus said as His ONLY words on the subject? Are not Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Peter 1 and 2, Paul’s epistles, etc., inerrant truth as well?
Are they not considered as much the word of God (and Jesus is God) as the ‘words of Jesus’ himself?
If not, why not?
It seems to me that the argument of "Jesus did not say anything about X’ is an attempt to LIMIT the inerrancy of teaching to only a few words of Scripture, taken out of context, and to ignore, twist, or deny the truth --the EQUALITY of truth–in all the rest of Scripture–and Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium as well.
It’s an attempt to claim that there is a ‘1st tier truth’ (what JESUS said). . .and that anything else is a lesser, flawed truth or not even a truth at all. . .
Very troubling.
And here’s another point: We consider Scripture to be God-breathed and inerrant, correct? We consider it the written word of God, right?
Therefore, any Scriptural passage is, in effect, coming from Jesus. Isn’t it? He may be inspiring given men (like St Paul) to speak on a topic, but what St Paul says is what Jesus considers as truth. Isn’t that correct?
That being the case, why attempt to limit only the "red words’ that Jesus said as His ONLY words on the subject? Are not Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Peter 1 and 2, Paul’s epistles, etc., inerrant truth as well?
Are they not considered as much the word of God (and Jesus is God) as the ‘words of Jesus’ himself?
If not, why not?
It seems to me that the argument of "Jesus did not say anything about X’ is an attempt to LIMIT the inerrancy of teaching to only a few words of Scripture, taken out of context, and to ignore, twist, or deny the truth --the EQUALITY of truth–in all the rest of Scripture–and Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium as well.
It’s an attempt to claim that there is a ‘1st tier truth’ (what JESUS said). . .and that anything else is a lesser, flawed truth or not even a truth at all. . .
Very troubling.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Actually, Jesus did speak about women’s ordination. He informed the Catholic Church, through the Holy Spirit, that the Church has no authority to ordain women. So He has spoken. He’s done it many times throughout the 2000 years since His Death and Resurrection. He knows He has to say it again and again because people are so certain that they know what He ‘meant’ (even when they are completely and utterly wrong); that’s why He established a Church and didn’t leave us wandering around as 7 billion ‘individuals’, each with a limited, fallible, understanding, each convinced that ‘our way’ was right, and all arguing as no two people would have the SAME understanding in all points!!!
There is an absolute TRUTH and His name is Jesus Christ. But if we are wandering around looking for Him, certain we can ‘find Him’ if we just say, “Here I am, God”, and not going where we are assured by Him that He will be, we’ll be likely to miss Him completely or be fooled by ‘look-alikes’ who claim to be Him, but aren’t.
There is an absolute TRUTH and His name is Jesus Christ. But if we are wandering around looking for Him, certain we can ‘find Him’ if we just say, “Here I am, God”, and not going where we are assured by Him that He will be, we’ll be likely to miss Him completely or be fooled by ‘look-alikes’ who claim to be Him, but aren’t.
mathematoons
New member
My priest has never, to my knowledge, given a homily against parent-child incest. But that doesn’t mean he approves of it.
Plus, Jesus never said that only His words quoted in the Gospels constitute binding doctrine. So people who say “Jesus never said…” are using something Jesus never said to “prove” a point.
Plus, Jesus never said that only His words quoted in the Gospels constitute binding doctrine. So people who say “Jesus never said…” are using something Jesus never said to “prove” a point.
- Status