J
justasking4
Guest
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify?
- Status
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
**
** I am afraid you are dead wrong scripturally.
Repent first and then be baptized is scripturally true.
Repent and Confess are not equals. Maybe you should research the differences between Repenting and Confessing.
J
justasking4
Guest
Here is the passage that is found in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES:
But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
Jude 1:14-15-t was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
These are not examples of things that were handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles because they are in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES themselves.
Remember we need to see something outside the Scriptures that was spoken of by Jesus. Good try. I’m still waiting…
J
justasking4
Guest
You misunderstand. I never said anything about “Bible Alone” and “Faith Alone” in my comments. Would you not agree that if something in not found in Scripture then it cannot be said to be scriptural? It could still be true but its not bibilcal.
V
VociMike
Guest
True (we’ll ignore the woman in Revelation).
And this is totally false. How can you make such an unverifiable statement?! The only possible statement you can make is “no written account of this earlier than X has survived”. Arguing from lack of written documents is historically infantile. You Protestants, who would trust any written document before you would trust the Church, just amaze me.
J
justasking4
Guest
Think about what you are saying here as a catholic. This means that infant baptisms are not scriptural because we both know an infant cannot repent.
i never claimed they were.
To repent;change ways: to feel regret about a sin or past actions and change your ways or habits
confessing means to acknowledge your sin.
J
justasking4
Guest
Yes you should ignore the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary. Here is why from a couple of catholic scholars by the names of Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.
Here is what catholic scholars say about this:
The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’
As you can see these are from your own catholic sources.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Yes you have in other threads gones by.
**Yes I do agree. Everything the Catholic church teaches can be found either explicitly or implicitly. You disagree with this concept. This you do at the risk of your own peril. I was Catholic in heart as a Protestant because my own indepth study of the Bible and it’s underlying Greek and Hebrew coupled with education in the ancient Judaic culture contradicted what I was being preached to from behind the pulpit and in the Sunday School classroom. **
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Faulty Logic. Of all beings, babies are in a constant state of growth and flux as a condition of their growing nature. You forget that in the Catholic Church the baptismal rites are co-joined to the oaths of the child’s parents and godparents to grow and nurture them in the faith. Repentance then is a condition of repentance from original sin and becoming a growing and living Christian under the tutelage of their parents.
**QED **
Baptised children are repentant as a condition of their baptism and through the partnership with God’s Holy Spirit working in direct proportion to their ever growing ability to comprehend their condition and respond to their parents guidance.
Your fundamentalist perspective would condemn all mentally ill people and deaf and dumb people to hell for not being able to hear the word of God and shout out “I believe”. Great logic - great scholarship.
Shall we call you Oldscholar?
James
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you know what is meant by these terms? If so, can you briefly explain them to me?
What specifically made you think catholicism was the way?
Were you aware of the many doctrines and practices of the catholic church before you converted?
M
meandean
Guest
what if you did abandon the sacred traditions and just became a bible christian, would that make youAll we can read is your posts, ja4, and you have been quite clear and consistent that you believe the leaders of the Catholic Church are teaching error, and that if Catholics will just read their bibles then they can become bible christians.
You do, every time you state that the Teachings are in error. Since you believe that nothing should be taught that is not in scripture, and that Catholic doctrines are not in scripture, this is a way of saying that the Church is out of order as a teaching authority.
What is this need that you have, ja4? What keeps you from allowing Catholics to hold to their traditions, and shaking off the dust of your feet?
There is no “rule” (besides your own) that Traditions not be found in scripture. In fact, most of them are found in both places. Take the table of contents of the Bible, for example. This is one element of Sacred Tradition that is found nowhere in the Bible. The Apostles creed, on the other hand, is almost completely reflected in the Bible.
With all due respect, ja4 has made it clear he is not here to learn about Catholism. His goal here is to pursuade Catholics to abandon the Sacred Traditions, which he believes are “speculations of man” and become bible christians. He does read the catechism, and it has not been pursuasive.
Don’t be misled by the questions of ja4, Khariz. You are new here (welcome by the way) so you may not be aware that his questions are disingenuous. He does not really want to know about Sacred Tradition. He has already made up his mind that it is all the "speculations of men’. If you read his posts from 18 months ago, you can see that this information has been given to him repeatedly.
ja4 thinks that tradition should have nothing to do with scripture. He believes scripture interprets itself.
On the contrary, that is exactly what he believes it is!
Check back with me in 6 months, and we will see how “helpful” you feel.
What you get hammered for is the disingenousness of your request. As soon as information is provided, you will say “but it is not in the bible, and all we have is in the bible.”
CAF is not a venue for you to promote you anti-Catholic evangelistic agenda, ja4. If you wish to “exhort” you will have to go elsewhere.
less or lost?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
The majoirity of things written by the ECF are a result of some outside sect claiming that a teaching was not true, so the ECF wrote a treatise on the matter. Silence on any given issue can be attributed to the idea that it never was questioned until someone had developed his own heretical ideas.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Bible Alone = The Bible is only source of biblical truth and is the only Authority = with your atttitude, you believe this without question except you would be hard pressed to provide a verse that states this idea.
Faith Alone = one is saved by Faith alone. Most protestants believe this or they don’t know that that is tenant of the reformation. Which one are you?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Well, you have been trying to make this very case for us by repeatedly teaching us things that none of the Apostles nor Jesus ever taught or were spoken by same. Such things as sola scriptura and the Johnny-Come-Lately religions of Protestantism and the new styled “bible light” KJV with a tithe of missing scriptural books (7 ripped out and burned on the altar of heresy) were never taught or spoken by Jesus. So why would you, a person who routinely teaches things outside scripture want to impose a standard of “bible only” on The Holy Catholic Church when Catholics have never claimed to rely just on scripture?Remember we need to see something outside the Scriptures that was spoken of by Jesus. Good try. I’m still waiting…
James
V
VociMike
Guest
That’s why I did. You, apparently, thought otherwise?
Good grief! Do you really believe that Mary, the mother of the Savior, just vanished off the face of the earth and no Christian knew of her fate? That even John, in whose house Mary lived for the rest of her days, knew nothing about her end? Could any assertion be more foolhardy? This is getting into Twilight Zone territory now.
And again you make the mistake (deliberate?) of equating contemporary written documentation with knowledge. You would trust written documents (even secular documents!) before you would trust Christ’s Church. You approach the faith as a skeptic, demanding proof of this and proof of that. Well, prove Christianity while you’re at it.
J
justasking4
Guest
VociMike;3535730]That’s why I did. You, apparently, thought otherwise?
All i’m doing is pointing out what historical sources tell us. Think what this does the proclaimation of the pope in 1950 that proclaimed as dogma Mary was assumed into heaven without any historical evidence to back up the claim. Without it, this doctrine crumbles. Compare this with resurrection of Christ and the evidence give for it. See I Cornthinians 15:1-8. Its an incrediblity powerful witness that would stand up in a court of law.
It not a mistaken but helps us to keep us from beleiving error. This is where we can see a lot of false exposed. They can’t back up their claims with facts but want you to believe their words alone. Again, look at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. It is rock solid because there is so much eyewitness evidence for it. This alone goes far in proving Christianity is true.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
A deep and thorough study of the Ancient Greek, which is the original language of the majority of the New Testament. And a deep and thorough study of Ancient Judaic Culture and a study of the Modern Judaic Culture. Have you ever seen the quote “If it aint the King James Version, it ain’t the Bible”? Well mine is similar: 'If it aint the Greek Bible, it ain’t the Bible"! Couple all of that with a sense of Dialeticness and then the inevitableness of the full of truth of Catholicism manifests itself.
Inerrancy of Scripture does not mitigate itself to a translation. Translations are subject to the opinions and preconcieved notions of the translator. And by the way, there is no biblical support that a translation is God-breathed(Theopnuestos).
No. I grew up in a Pentecostal home if that tells you anything. My 20/20 hindsight tells me, that my theology was nearly in line with Catholicism. :extrahappy:
J
justasking4
Guest
This sounds like the great doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Here is what i believe about it:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
This is true. I beleive that it is only in Christ alone who can save a person. There is nothing a man can do to save himself. It is all of Christ and can only be “accepted” by faith alone.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says it best when Paul writes these words:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
V
VociMike
Guest
So you claim that Mary disappeared and nobody knew what happened to her? Yes or no?
If you want to treat your faith as a provable proposition then you have your own problems, because Christianity is not provable. Do you actually think that accounts written by believers count as proof? Your approach screams Double Standard! and you can’t even see it.
He who persecutes the Church persecutes Christ. He who rejects the Church rejects Christ. That’s the bottom line.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
I will digress to an earlier comment or link about anything about Mary being quiet on issues.
Imagine Caesar parading Mary into the coliseum and having the lions eat her alive and making this statement: "Your God supposedly kept Daniel from being eaten, but your same God could not even keep his own Mother from being eaten. Your God is a false God, he could not save his own Mother from ME a True God"
Imagine Caesar parading Mary into the coliseum and having the lions eat her alive and making this statement: "Your God supposedly kept Daniel from being eaten, but your same God could not even keep his own Mother from being eaten. Your God is a false God, he could not save his own Mother from ME a True God"
- Status