The Purpose of Marriage

[ThinkingSapien]

It’s got nothing to do with it not fitting any image of Jesus as promoted today

I know. I shared the comment to point out a significant difference between the Gospel of Thomas and the other Gospels for those that are less familiar.

 

[PRmerger]

As I already said, by all means call knowing Jesus a doctrine if you want, we don’t.

Yes. It’s like saying, “By all means you can call 2 + 2 = 4 a math fact. We don’t at our school”.

You (PR, not Catholics) sound somewhat legalistic, concerned more for the letter of the law than it’s spirit, we are the opposite.

I feel that your judging of me here is especially egregious given the fact that you believe we cannot judge others (a doctrine that you don’t call a doctrine ).

Of course, Catholicism professes that we must judge, but judge rightly. So I don’t have a problem with judging. And I don’t have a problem with your judging me.

But **you **ought to have a problem with your behavior, if you really believe we cannot judge.

And, again, why Catholicism is so formidable to object to: we argue the both/and most of the time. There is no reason to be ONLY legalistic or to be ONLY spiritual. We are commanded to follow the letter of the law as well as the spirit.

As the Sacred Scriptures proclaim: Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.—Hebrews 13:17 and The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.—Matthew 23:1-3

As the wonderful Catholic GK Chesterton said, “Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair”

Both! No need to create any dichotomy.

 

[PRmerger]

And wasn’t considered by the Church fathers to be valid, hence (like various other such documents) was rejected as unreliable, and wasn’t included in the canon in 367 AD. It’s got nothing to do with it not fitting any image of Jesus as promoted today, it was rejected by the early Church (otherwise it would have been included as part of the established canon of the Bible).

Right.

And to reject the Gnostic gospels because it doesn’t fit the image of Jesus is circular reasoning. “I know who Jesus is because of the gospels, and I know this is not a true gospel because it’s a different Jesus than the gospels”.

 

[Brendan_64]

What Authority does the CC have to tell you that the above is the inspired word of God? Do you believe it because the CC tells you so? or do you recognise it as truth when you read/hear it?

Where do you think the Bible came from? Why does the Bible only consist of the books that it consists of, and not of a great many other writings that were in existence at the the time of the early Church? Who decided upon what makes up the Bible? The early Church did.

As to knowing something is the word of God because you recognise truth when you hear it. Why then did it take Ecumenical Councils and much discussion within the Church to sort out what is truth and what is heresy? Why have there been schisms? Why is the Body of Christ on Earth not united?

 

[josh987654321]

Where do you think the Bible came from?

The Catholic Church

Why does the Bible only consist of the books that it consists of, and not of a great many other writings that were in existence at the the time of the early Church? Who decided upon what makes up the Bible? The early Church did.

As to knowing something is the word of God because you recognise truth when you hear it. Why then did it take Ecumenical Councils and much discussion within the Church to sort out what is truth and what is heresy? Why have there been schisms? Why is the Body of Christ on Earth not united?

Could you tell me please.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Yes. It’s like saying, “By all means you can call 2 + 2 = 4 a math fact. We don’t at our school”.

At our school we called that basic arithmetic, mathematics meant more sophisticated stuff, but call the marriage vows doctrine, call a recipe for making toast doctrine, call a prayer doctrine, fine by me.

*I feel that your judging of me here is especially egregious given the fact that you believe we cannot judge others (a doctrine that you don’t call a doctrine ).

Of course, Catholicism professes that we must judge, but judge rightly. So I don’t have a problem with judging. And I don’t have a problem with your judging me.

But **you ***ought to have a problem with your behavior, if you really believe we cannot judge.

There’s a difference between me saying that you sound legalistic, and you calling an untold number of people “dum dum lump in the pew Catholics”, but if you can’t see that then it’s not for me to judge.

*And, again, why Catholicism is so formidable to object to: we argue the both/and most of the time. There is no reason to be ONLY legalistic or to be ONLY spiritual. We are commanded to follow the letter of the law as well as the spirit.

As the Sacred Scriptures proclaim: Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.—Hebrews 13:17 and The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.—Matthew 23:1-3

As the wonderful Catholic GK Chesterton said, “Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair”

Both! No need to create any dichotomy. *

Indeed, practice what you preach, and your sermon would have been much more effective had it not been for the dum dum comment earlier.

 

[stewstew03]

…
Why do you think Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hinduists convert to Christianity? They don’t have the authority of their faith telling them that the Gospels are the inspired word of God.

Through the Holy Spirit.

 

[mek42]

Why are you guys hammering on Josh so much? Does the Catholic Church really expect one to accept the Bible strictly on authority? Is it some sort of sin for one’s soul to sing, resonating with words given by God? Has man been stripped of the ability to exercise discernment and reason when approaching the Holy text after the canon was established?

 

[PRmerger]

At our school we called that basic arithmetic, mathematics meant more sophisticated stuff, but call the marriage vows doctrine, call a recipe for making toast doctrine, call a prayer doctrine, fine by me.

Perhaps you don’t have children or have never helped them with their math, but here’s some information for you about what are called “math facts”.

childparenting.about.com/od/schoollearning/a/what-is-a-fact-family.htm

ask.com/question/what-is-a-math-fact

eduplace.com/math/mathsteps/1/a/

 

[PRmerger]

There’s a difference between me saying that you sound legalistic, and you calling an untold number of people “dum dum lump in the pew Catholics”, but if you can’t see that then it’s not for me to judge.

I’m not sure why you are operating under the misapprehension that I think judging is wrong.

As I have already stated, we are commanded to judge. Commanded, inocente.

In fact, people who don’t judge are…well…dum dums.

Your doctrine of “do not judge” appears to be quite contrary to Scripture, and to reason.

And even you don’t even believe your own doctrine because you have already judged a multitude of times here.

Which makes you very Catholic. And reasonable. And logical.

Indeed, practice what you preach,…

Another doctrine that you are espousing here!



Truly, inocente, you cannot profess any belief here, make any claim, try to argue against any member here without belying your “my Baptist faith doesn’t have any doctrines except Jesus is savior”.

In the course of just a few days you’ve already offered contradictions to the above.

To wit: “practice what you preach”
and “do not judge”.

So it’s safe to assume that you already have 3 doctrines.

Now, I am going to have to say buh-bye to you, as I am well aware of your posting history.

When you are confronted with truths that make you squirm, and that you really do see as true, and to which you cannot refute, you react with snark.

I’m not in the mood right now to be indulgent with that as I have been wont to do in the past.

I like you, lots, but I’m not willing to offer my benignly permissive shoulder right now.

 

[PRmerger]

Does the Catholic Church really expect one to accept the Bible strictly on authority?

There is no such “expectation” by the Church.

It is simply being posited by Catholics here that there is no other way for any Christianto know what is the inspired Word of God, except through an authority.

Is it some sort of sin for one’s soul to sing, resonating with words given by God? Has man been stripped of the ability to exercise discernment and reason when approaching the Holy text after the canon was established?

What if a text that professes that women are to be enslaved resonates with him? Do you think this person ought to be claiming that it’s the Word of God?

And, conversely, what if a verse does not make a person’s soul sing? Does that mean it is not inspired?

 

[josh987654321]

There is no such “expectation” by the Church.

It is simply being posited by Catholics here that there is no other way for any Christian to know what is the inspired Word of God, except through an authority.

Is there another way you could explain this to me?

**Matthew 21:23-27

A Question about Jesus’ Authority

23 Jesus had gone into the temple and was teaching when the chief priests and the leaders of the people came up to him. They asked, “What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you this authority?”

24 Jesus answered, “I have just one question to ask you. If you answer it, I will tell you where I got the right to do these things. 25 Who gave John the right to baptize? Was it God in heaven or merely some human being?”

They thought it over and said to each other, “We can’t say that God gave John this right. Jesus will ask us why we didn’t believe John. 26 On the other hand, these people think that John was a prophet, and we are afraid of what they might do to us. That’s why we can’t say that it was merely some human who gave John the right to baptize.” 27 So they told Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Then I won’t tell you who gave me the right to do what I do.”**

Could you explain this passage to me please?

What if a text that professes that women are to be enslaved resonates with him? Do you think this person ought to be claiming that it’s the Word of God?

Some do, this is why we are not all united in Christianity or the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, remember, Jesus said to Pilate, “I was born into this world to tell about the truth. And everyone who belongs to the truth knows my voice.” (John 18:37)

And, conversely, what if a verse does not make a person’s soul sing? Does that mean it is not inspired?

No, but telling them that, that verse is inspired won’t make any difference. You can’t tell people to see/recognise truth. You can’t tell people to know Jesus’ voice. We can preach and teach (Which is what the CC does), but in the end, we have to recognise his voice, the Church cannot tell us this.

This is why Jesus said, “Who do you say that I am?”

Do you wonder why he refrained from calling himself the Son of God? he did not deny it when others said it, because it was the truth, but he didn’t go around telling people that he was the Son of God, he wanted people to see it, to recognise who he was.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

A classic example is Mass.

The common response as to why people attend mass is “Because it’s commanded of us” or “Because it’s a sin to miss mass for no valid reason.”

Such answers show that these people don’t ‘get it’ or ‘don’t understand’ so to speak.

When people miss mass for no valid reason (e.g. they didn’t feel like going), the church teaches us that this is a sin. However Christ does not want people to attend mass out of fear, guilt or by feeling forced. Christ wants us to attend mass because we want to, because we love him and want to recieve that enourmous gift where he comes down and feeds us with his body, blood, soul and divinity, we should attend becuase we want that encounter of real love with him through the Eucharist.

Christ doesn’t want mass to be some routine that lacks all enthusiasm, he wants it to be another unique and loving encounter with him.

To miss mass for no valid reason is a sin because we have placed recieveing that enourmous gift of the Holy Eucharist, where Christ comes down and feeds us with his body, blood, soul and divinity as such a low priority or we have failed to see the Holy Eucharist as the enourmous gift that it is, as that encounter of real love with Christ.

When people say to someone “The Church commands us to go to Mass” or just “Missing mass is a sin.” They have missed the point. They should go because they want to go.

Mark121359 said it best on another thread -

Mark121359:

You have to have that passion for the Faith burning with fire inside you. To me, if you don’t have a deep, deep passion for Christ in your heart beforehand, then even if you do attend Mass, you will likely be just paying lip service and not much more. And this I speak from experience!.."*These people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." *Isaiah 29:13

I apologise for the off-topic nature of these posts.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Why are you guys hammering on Josh so much?

Thank you mek42, It’s okay though, I don’t think they are hammering on me. I know that is certainly not their intention if it looks that way, I think they are just trying to express their view, in which we can learn from one another.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Brendan_64]

Does the Catholic Church really expect one to accept the Bible strictly on authority? Is it some sort of sin for one’s soul to sing, resonating with words given by God? Has man been stripped of the ability to exercise discernment and reason when approaching the Holy text after the canon was established?

So are you then of the opinion that each man ought to decide for himself which of the myriad of writings that might have found their way into the Bible.?

The book of Jubilees, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Paul’s Epistle to the Laodicean, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Preaching of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, The Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel According to the Egyptians, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Lord, the Trimorphic Protennoia, and no doubt more…

Ought all of these (and more) be included in the New Testament and leave it to each individual to exercise their own discernment and reason to determine what is and what is not the truth? Should each individual discern should and should not be regarded as true scripture? Should each man compile his own Bible with a canon according to what he has discerned?

 

[josh987654321]

So are you then of the opinion that each man ought to decide for himself which of the myriad of writings that might have found their way into the Bible.?

The book of Jubilees, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Paul’s Epistle to the Laodicean, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Preaching of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, The Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel According to the Egyptians, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Lord, the Trimorphic Protennoia, and no doubt more…

Ought all of these (and more) be included in the New Testament and leave it to each individual to exercise their own discernment and reason to determine what is and what is not the truth? Should each individual discern should and should not be regarded as true scripture? Should each man compile his own Bible with a canon according to what he has discerned?

No, The Church during the time those were written, especially considering those who witnessed it and saw what actually happened were able to testify that these others were false/inaccurate, so therefore they are not included and the fact that they are false/inacurate has been passed down through generation after generation to us today along with the Gospels that were accurate through the CC.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Truly, inocente, you cannot profess any belief here, make any claim, try to argue against any member here without belying your “my Baptist faith doesn’t have any doctrines except Jesus is savior”.

In the course of just a few days you’ve already offered contradictions to the above.

To wit: “practice what you preach”
and “do not judge”.

So it’s safe to assume that you already have 3 doctrines.

Now, I am going to have to say buh-bye to you, as I am well aware of your posting history.

When you are confronted with truths that make you squirm, and that you really do see as true, and to which you cannot refute, you react with snark.

I’m not in the mood right now to be indulgent with that as I have been wont to do in the past.

I like you, lots, but I’m not willing to offer my benignly permissive shoulder right now.

There’s a difference between me saying that you sound legalistic, and you calling an untold number of people “dum dum lump in the pew Catholics”, but if you can’t see that then it’s not for me to judge.

 

[inocente]

Does the Catholic Church really expect one to accept the Bible strictly on authority? Is it some sort of sin for one’s soul to sing, resonating with words given by God? Has man been stripped of the ability to exercise discernment and reason when approaching the Holy text after the canon was established?

I don’t believe the Church does. This Church document recognizes that other religions contain truth, which must mean that the Church recognizes that other holy books contain truth, which must mean that it recognizes that others can discern what is and isn’t holy.

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t believe the Church does. This Church document recognizes that other religions contain truth, which must mean that the Church recognizes that other holy books contain truth, which must mean that it recognizes that others can discern what is and isn’t holy.

In Nostra Aetate the Church recognises that other religions may, “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men an women”. The Catholic Church recognises that there may be a ray of truth reflected in other faiths and clearly, “the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions”. However the fullness of God’s Truth lies within the Catholic Church and the mission of the Church is to proclaim the truth of the Lord without fail.

Saying that some things contained in other religions, “reflect a ray of truth” is very different from saying that other religions contain the truth. It’s a bit like a circle, with a source of light being at the centre, the Church Christ created on Earth and light radiating out. All, but the darkest, outermost edges of the circle will contain no reflections of any light rays from the source.

The Gospels and writings that were rejected from inclusion in the canon of the Bible will certainly contain some reflections of truth (some more so than others) but that does not mean that those writings are, in themselves, true.

 

[inocente]

In Nostra Aetate the Church recognises that other religions may, “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men an women”. The Catholic Church recognises that there may be a ray of truth reflected in other faiths and clearly, “the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions”. However the fullness of God’s Truth lies within the Catholic Church and the mission of the Church is to proclaim the truth of the Lord without fail.

Saying that some things contained in other religions, “reflect a ray of truth” is very different from saying that other religions contain the truth. It’s a bit like a circle, with a source of light being at the centre, the Church Christ created on Earth and light radiating out. All, but the darkest, outermost edges of the circle will contain no reflections of any light rays from the source.

The Gospels and writings that were rejected from inclusion in the canon of the Bible will certainly contain some reflections of truth (some more so than others) but that does not mean that those writings are, in themselves, true.

Yes, I’d expect the Church to say that it is better able to see truth than others, it’s to be expected that all religions will make that claim.

But claiming that it is more discerning is very different from claiming that only the Church exclusively can recognize truth, since it doesn’t deny that others can discern, just they’re not as able.

In the world outside internet forums, especially where there are tensions between communities, any religion which wants to peacefully co-exist with others and with the wider world must in some sense recognize that it doesn’t have exclusive ownership of the truth. Imho