So, i hear...

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdomseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s similar to a Protestant’s arguement. They say they all agree on ‘essentials’. Only, who gets to decide what’s essential and what’s not. I thought it was a legimate question. And bringing up the Orthodox and the great schism doesn’t mean that ‘differences’ were acceptable as taught by the Apostles, who received their teachings directly from Christ. Believe me, those differences bother me as well, but for all Christians I continue to pray for unity as I believe that was the teaching of the early Church and is more than supported by scriptures.
Click to expand...
Even God put some values above others, no? What is wrong with a hierarchy of values? A hierarchy of values is Biblically supported.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s similar to a Protestant’s arguement. They say they all agree on ‘essentials’. Only, who gets to decide what’s essential and what’s not. I thought it was a legimate question. And bringing up the Orthodox and the great schism doesn’t mean that ‘differences’ were acceptable as taught by the Apostles, who received their teachings directly from Christ. Believe me, those differences bother me as well, but for all Christians I continue to pray for unity as I believe that was the teaching of the early Church and is more than supported by scriptures.
Click to expand...
Prodigal, I’ve been following this thread for a while, and what I find interesting is the use of “faith in Jesus” being used as a reason to disobey Him as He continues to teach us through His Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And isn’t it “funny” how the heterodox always presume that there own positions come from some deeper spiritual insight and anointing, but that the objective teachings of Christ through His Church are just too much “baggage” to hold on to in their desire for a superficial unity?
 
spn82756 said:
But bringing up the Orthodox does show differences in 2 Churches that claim and recognize Apostolic Succession and that does have significance. If we cannot agree…then that is not good. Orthodox do not even accept baptism as being valid if outside the Orthodox Church. It is a very sad state when the 2 Churches are experiencing such difficulty.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is; but you touch here on where true ecumenism is at work, especially as our Holy Father is working assiduously to bring reunion about - a reunion based on truth, not a unity in name only based on feelings of “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along?” which is being proposed by some in this thread.
 
spn82756 said:
But bringing up the Orthodox does show differences in 2 Churches that claim and recognize Apostolic Succession and that does have significance. If we cannot agree…then that is not good. Orthodox do not even accept baptism as being valid if outside the Orthodox Church. It is a very sad state when the 2 Churches are experiencing such difficulty.
Click to expand...
So if two Churches do not agree, then it’s not necessary for any Churches to agree?
 
FCEGM said:
Prodigal, I’ve been following this thread for a while, and what I find interesting is the use of “faith in Jesus” being used as a reason to disobey Him as He continues to teach us through His Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And isn’t it “funny” how the heterodox always presume that there own positions come from some deeper spiritual insight and anointing, but that the objective teachings of Christ through His Church are just too much “baggage” to hold on to in their desire for a superficial unity?
Click to expand...
Yea, it’s funny how they say, ‘the Catholic Church is not right and cannot be infallible, because I know and I’m right!’🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So if two Churches do not agree, then it’s not necessary for any Churches to agree?
Click to expand...
You’re helping to make my point. I have great respect for the Orthodox Church…but there are differences. Not just the authority of the pope.

Theologically we continue to slowly depart from each other. That is sad.
 
FCEGM said:
Prodigal, I’ve been following this thread for a while, and what I find interesting is the use of “faith in Jesus” being used as a reason to disobey Him as He continues to teach us through His Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And isn’t it “funny” how the heterodox always presume that there own positions come from some deeper spiritual insight and anointing, but that the objective teachings of Christ through His Church are just too much “baggage” to hold on to in their desire for a superficial unity?
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Orthodox Church is heterodox? I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe we have the fullest knowledge available. But so do the Orthodox and they do have Apostolic Succession.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Read post 827, but start with the post I quoted and see specifically the last sentence claiming Christ let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more, to keep His real identity hidden. That is incorrect, to say the least. They left Christ because they found His words too hard. Had Christ been speaking symbolism, He would have explained the symbolism to stop them from leaving Him and walking with Him no more. The point being, Christ spoke literally in John 6.
Click to expand...

I agree that they lest, not because He wanted to be hidden, but because of what He said.​

I disagree that He would have said it was symbolism to keep them from leaving if it was symbolism. Jesus spoke in parables and explained them to His disciples only. Not everyone is able to understand; God hardened the heart of Pharoah.
 
Dokimas said:

I agree that they lest, not because He wanted to be hidden, but because of what He said.​

I disagree that He would have said it was symbolism to keep them from leaving if it was symbolism. Jesus spoke in parables and explained them to His disciples only. Not everyone is able to understand; God hardened the heart of Pharoah.
Click to expand...
**Joh 6:66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. **
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
A hierarchy of different values is supported?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

This is just one example.

Are you feigning ignorance of this very very famous passage?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Read post 827, but start with the post I quoted and see specifically the last sentence claiming Christ let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more, to keep His real identity hidden. That is incorrect, to say the least. They left Christ because they found His words too hard. Had Christ been speaking symbolism, He would have explained the symbolism to stop them from leaving Him and walking with Him no more. The point being, Christ spoke literally in John 6.
Click to expand...
Well, of course you would speculate what Jesus “would do” if things had been different. :rolleyes:

The symbolism was obvious; no explanation was necessary. It remains obvious to this day.
 
larkin31 said:
Absolutely.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

This is just one example.

Are you feigning ignorance of this very very famous passage?
Click to expand...
Maybe I wasn’t clear. Show scriptures supporting different values due to different interpretations.

As for your feigning ignorance remark, I recognize it for what it is. Your posts to me have been most condescending and demeaning. I am not ignorant or stupid, and I don’t purposely feign either one.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
larkin31;6293915:
Absolutely.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
Click to expand...
(NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

This is just one example.

Are you feigning ignorance of this very very famous passage?

I did not claim ANYTHING about “different interpretations,” nor was that in your question to me which I just replied to. The exchange is there for everyone to see.

You keep contorting in displeasure simply because your claims are objected to.

Jesus clearly articulates a hierarchy of values, and my claim was that the Bible supports a hierarchy of values. To deny a hierarchy of Christian values is to deny one the most obvious Biblical truths.

THAT is my point. And only that.
Click to expand...
 
larkin31 said:
Well, of course you would speculate what Jesus “would do” if things had been different. :rolleyes:

The symbolism was obvious; no explanation was necessary. It remains obvious to this day.
Click to expand...
Maybe you missed this point I raised earlier.

There were times Jesus spoke about food symbolically, but each time He explained the symbolism. Reading John 6 in light of these symbolic discussions, and one being authored by John, there was no symbolism in John 6.

There are many more scriptures, as well as writings from the early Church fathers telling how the early Church practiced Christianity, to support the real presence. These scriptures include typology of the Old Testament and repeated renditions by several authors of the New Testament.

**Joh 4:31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat.
Joh 4:32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.
Joh 4:33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
Joh 4:34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

Mat 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.
Mat 16:6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?
Mat 16:9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. **
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Maybe you missed this point I raised earlier.

There were times Jesus spoke about food symbolically, but each time He explained the symbolism. Reading John 6 in light of these symbolic discussions, and one being authored by John, there was no symbolism in John 6.

There are many more scriptures, as well as writings from the early Church fathers telling how the early Church practiced Christianity, to support the real presence. These scriptures include typology of the Old Testament and repeated renditions by several authors of the New Testament.

**Joh 4:31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat.
Joh 4:32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.
Joh 4:33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
Joh 4:34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

Mat 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.
Mat 16:6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?
Mat 16:9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. **
Click to expand...
I already commented on this one: the listeners were thick-headed in this one. Jesus rebuked them for being slow-minded (I would too).

By John 6 they get this better. And no wonder.
 
larkin31 said:
Prodigal Son1;6293930:
I did not claim ANYTHING about “different interpretations,” nor was that in your question to me which I just replied to. The exchange is there for everyone to see.

You keep contorting in displeasure simply because your claims are objected to.

Jesus clearly articulates a hierarchy of values, and my claim was that the Bible supports a hierarchy of values. To deny a hierarchy of Christian values is to deny one the most obvious Biblical truths.

THAT is my point. And only that.
Click to expand...
Did I not clarify my point?

I take objection to your ‘anti-Catholic’ attitude under the guise of an agnostic. The only faith you have objected too is Catholicism. Most recently, you have started taking the attitude towards me directly. Let me recommend you not cross the line, as specified in the rules of the forums, or just stop discussing with me all together, if that’s the best you can do.

Catholics believe in a ‘hierarchy’ of values, just as we believe in a hierarchy of sins.

My wording was not clear, because we were discussing the many different interpretations being acceptable or not in scriptures. Can you provide any scriptures showing that different beliefs were acceptable or that there were ‘essentials’ only that had to be adhered too?

This remind me of the once saved always saved arguments. I hear, what does John 3:16 mean? It means if that was all that was necessary, our New Testaments would be able to fit on the face of a watch. We have many more writings in the New Testament, many instructions and corrections. One verse does not make a complete faith, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Did I not clarify my point?

I take objection to your ‘anti-Catholic’ attitude under the guise of an agnostic. The only faith you have objected too is Catholicism. Most recently, you have started taking the attitude towards me directly. Let me recommend you not cross the line, as specified in the rules of the forums, or just stop discussing with me all together, if that’s the best you can do.

Catholics believe in a ‘hierarchy’ of values, just as we believe in a hierarchy of sins.

My wording was not clear, because we were discussing the many different interpretations being acceptable or not in scriptures. Can you provide any scriptures showing that different beliefs were acceptable or that there were ‘essentials’ only that had to be adhered too?

This remind me of the once saved always saved arguments. I hear, what does John 3:16 mean? It means if that was all that was necessary, our New Testaments would be able to fit on the face of a watch. We have many more writings in the New Testament, many instructions and corrections. One verse does not make a complete faith, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Now hold on just a minute. I’ve mainly read and done little posting…but this post is unwarranted. You cannot stop someone from posting within the rules of the forum. It is YOUR choice was to whether you will respond. Larkin was never Catholic…so what makes you think he’s going to defend Catholic teaching now? Let’s be sincere about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top