those pesky bereans!

[AgnosTheist]

Well, there are these. They are of a similar line as well.
goodmorals.org/smith7.htm

lets see:
“Twenty-five years ago Humanae Vitae “prophesied” that marriages and society would suffer if the use of contraception became widespread. Now the vast majority of spouses, as well as those who are unmarried, use some form of contraception.”
society would suffer because of contraception? thats a false prophecy. the U.N. encourages family planning to help curve the cycle of poverty. and thailand is proof that it works.

is that it? the verse implies that prophecy is common with high priests. and out of the hundreds of popes you can only present one with a faulty prophecy? thats not right.

Gordon E. Moore made a more accurate prediction.

 

[mercygate]

how come the high priest can utter prophecies and the popes could not?

For Christians, “prophecy” is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Popes are not exempt.

 

[AgnosTheist]

For Christians, “prophecy” is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Popes are not exempt.

and which of the 2 billion christians today makes prophecies? the hundreds of popes throughout history, being the so called ‘vicar of christ’, the assumed apostolic successors of Peter, its logical that they should have a higher rate of supernatural gifts. but its not. oh well. religion always falls short of expectations.

 

[mercygate]

and which of the 2 billion christians today makes prophecies? the hundreds of popes throughout history, being the so called ‘vicar of christ’, the assumed apostolic successors of Peter, its logical that they should have a higher rate of supernatural gifts. but its not.

The definition of prophecy is not “high class fortune telling.” It is the ability to speak the truth about God.

A LOT of Popes have done very well in their official capacity, thank you very much. Pope Leo XIII’s 1884 vision of the horrors of the 20th Century comes to mind. Curiously, he had this vision 33 years to the day prior to the Fatima miracle of the sun.

A LOT of ordinary Christians do very well speaking the truth about God in their own sphere also.

oh well. religion always falls short of expectations.

Not nearly as short as agnosticism

 

[MarcoPolo]

how come the high priest can utter prophecies and the popes could not?

Popes of the Catholic Church? Well, Peter did. But I am guessing it’s because public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle as I understand. Someone who knows for sure may correct me on that.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Well, Peter did.

except that Peter did not consider himself as pope.

But I am guessing it’s because public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle as I understand.

how very convenient.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The definition of prophecy is not “high class fortune telling.” It is the ability to speak the truth about God.

it is the ability to speak important future events in the name and for the glory of god.

the difference between fortune telling and prophecy is that the former is more for the individual, while the latter is more for the community.

Pope Leo XIII’s 1884 vision of the horrors of the 20th Century comes to mind. Curiously, he had this vision 33 years to the day prior to the Fatima miracle of the sun.

tell me about it. link?

 

[mercygate]

tell me about it. link?

There’s a lot of weirdness out there on the Internet about the St. Michael prayer. But in 1884, Leo XIII experienced a vision of Satan in dialogue with Christ and from it he believed that Satan would be given power to assault the Church for 75-100 years. Given the history of the 20th Century, it isn’t a stretch to believe that something actually was revealed to him.

In response to that vision, he immediately (prophetically?) wrote the famous prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, and ordered that it be prayed after every low Mass throughout the whole Church.

St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

[ralphinal]

AT,
I must admit that even though i helped hijack this thread, it has lead to a topic that has never interested me. I do like the study of the prophacies in the Bible, but extra-Biblical ones have never held my attention. To that end, I do not have a good list of any prophacies made by anyone, pope or not. I know the one I listed, and I found a link to it. You say that it is a weak support, and to an extent I agree. Anyone who knows human nature can make such predictions.

We must get to what a prophet is. A prophet is, among other things, a teacher of the messages of God. Therefore, all popes are prophets. As are all Christians who teach the true messages of God. Now, some prophets have the power to predict coming events. That power was used to strengthen the teaching authority of the prophet. In other words, they come to deliver a message and are granted the ability to perform signs of the connection with God. That is all over the Bible. No one was a prophet who did not teach. There are no oracles for God. Since those who follow the Church have no question about the authority of the Church to teach, there is no need of signs and wonders.

Before you say that these signs would help our claim with everyone who is not Catholic, and I know you were about to (am I a prophet?), the church has better ways to communicate. Logic is more important to most people today than signs and wonders. Besides, Paul said that some would not beleive even if the dead came back to life.

 

[MarcoPolo]

how very convenient.

Convenient and true. Refreshing isn’t it.

 

[justinthemartyr]

the bereans simply were confirming the prophecies of the coming of the messiah. thats all. way too many people read wayyyyy too far ito this verse.

what else would they be looking for?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Anyone who knows human nature can make such predictions.

Truely you are one of the more reasonable guys around here.

We must get to what a prophet is. A prophet is, among other things, a teacher of the messages of God. Therefore, all popes are prophets.

all prophets are teachers but not all teachers as prophets. jews are the ones who popularized the idea of ‘prophet’, so its only fitting that i take them as the higher authority on what this idea means. Its obvious that jews wrote this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet#Judaism
In Hebrew, the word traditionally translated as prophet is נְבִיא (navi), which likely means “proclaimer”. This forms the second of the three letters of TaNaKh, derived from Torah, Navim, Ketuvim. The meaning of navi is perhaps described in Deuteronomy 18:18, where God said, “I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him.” Thus, the navi was thought to be the “mouth” of God. The root nun-bet-alef (“navi”) is based on the two-letter root nun-bet which denotes hollowness or openness; to receive transcendental wisdom, one must make oneself “open”. Cf. Rashbam’s comment to Genesis 20:7.
In short, a prophet is one who has a direct message from God?

Besides, Paul said that some would not beleive even if the dead came back to life.

‘some’. but most would. Like what converted the disbelieving mexicans? The controversial ‘miracle’ in Guadalupe.

 

[bengal_fan]

the bereans simply were confirming the prophecies of the coming of the messiah. thats all. way too many people read wayyyyy too far ito this verse.

what else would they be looking for?

no, they were looking to see if Paul was telling the truth. and they were considered noble for doing so (not just because they didn’t riot, that is pretty clear in the passage). they tested the oral teaching of an apostle with the written teachings of the scriptures and were considered noble for doing it by the apostle himself. scripture is the authority to which all other authorites are subject. this is different than sola scriptura (some one said that it wasn’t in this thread but it is). sola scriptura says that scripture is the only authority (sola… only…), prima says it is has a primacy amongst the authorities (like catholics would say the pope has a primacy over all the bishops… they all have authority but they are ultimately subject to the authority of the pope). this is not what the church teaches, but i think this is what is generally lived out. the only places i have a problem with catholicism are the places where this isn’t lived out (i.e. making the marian doctrines necessary for salvation). anyway, i still haven’t seen a good refutation of this argument in this thread or on these forums.

 

[MarcoPolo]

anyway, i still haven’t seen a good refutation of this argument in this thread or on these forums.

I thought mine was pretty good, bengal. Not to mention this interpretation puts the authors and assemblers of the Septuagint as a higher authority than Paul.

 

[mercygate]

no, they were looking to see if Paul was telling the truth. and they were considered noble for doing so (not just because they didn’t riot, that is pretty clear in the passage). they tested the oral teaching of an apostle with the written teachings of the scriptures and were considered noble for doing it by the apostle himself. scripture is the authority to which all other authorites are subject. this is different than sola scriptura (some one said that it wasn’t in this thread but it is). sola scriptura says that scripture is the only authority (sola… only…), prima says it is has a primacy amongst the authorities (like catholics would say the pope has a primacy over all the bishops… they all have authority but they are ultimately subject to the authority of the pope). this is not what the church teaches, but i think this is what is generally lived out. the only places i have a problem with catholicism are the places where this isn’t lived out (i.e. making the marian doctrines necessary for salvation). anyway, i still haven’t seen a good refutation of this argument in this thread or on these forums.

Catholic teaching is that “the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology.”

 

[AgnosTheist]

Catholic teaching is that “the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology.”

And if the study of the sacred page leads someone to doubt & reject Catholicism?

 

[mercygate]

And if the study of the sacred page leads someone to doubt & reject Catholicism?

In reality, this is not possible. Scripture is read in the fulness of truth only from the heart of the Church. As King Solomon counsels: “lean not unto thine own understanding.”

A person with the wisdom of the ages at his disposal – Wisdom guided by the promise of Christ to His Church – thinks his own little pea brain trumps the Church that gave him the Scriptures?

Astounding.

 

[AgnosTheist]

In reality, this is not possible. Scripture is read in the fulness of truth only from the heart of the Church. As King Solomon counsels: “lean not unto thine own understanding.”

there are 3 ways of studying ‘sacred pages’.

1. Studying in light of finding justifications for promoting a cause.
2. Studying without biases.
3. Studying in hopes of finding justifications for rejecting a cause.

Yours is #1. And with this regards, I agree in reality its not possible to doubt catholicism.

A person with the wisdom of the ages at his disposal – Wisdom guided by the promise of Christ to His Church – thinks his own little pea brain trumps the Church that gave him the Scriptures?

Wisdoms of the ages have been trumped by little pea brains before.

The wisdom of religious rule.
The wisdom of papal states.
The wisdom that the earth is flat.
The wisdom of beating your wife.
The wisdom of racism.
The wisdom of slavery.
The wisdom of sexism.
And the countless superstitions out there.

Dont underestimate individuality. Sometimes thinking outside the box, helps improve the whole box.

 

[manualman]

I don’t see what protestants see here. I see Paul congratulating the Bereans for being more than fair weather converts. They aren’t content to simply be swept up in the emotion of conversion, they don’t want just the short version of this vision of faith. They want the whole deal. They want to see how the scriptures square with what Paul is preaching. They aren’t content to learn rules and rote, but want to know the principles and reason that supports them.

This is what we are all called to do as catholics. Catholics don’t proclaim the superiority of Tradition to Scripture. We call them the TWO pillars. Nothing in Tradition contradicts or can contradict anything in scripture (understood properly). Ever read Lumen Gentium? Paul would praise it the same way he did the Bereans. His praise is about comprehension and depth, not skepticism of legitimate authority.

 

[mercygate]

there are 3 ways of studying ‘sacred pages’.

1. Studying in light of finding justifications for promoting a cause.
2. Studying without biases.
3. Studying in hopes of finding justifications for rejecting a cause.

Yours is #1. And with this regards, I agree in reality its not possible to doubt catholicism.

Wisdoms of the ages have been trumped by little pea brains before.

The wisdom of religious rule.
The wisdom of papal states.
The wisdom that the earth is flat.
The wisdom of beating your wife.
The wisdom of racism.
The wisdom of slavery.
The wisdom of sexism.
And the countless superstitions out there.

Dont underestimate individuality. Sometimes thinking outside the box, helps improve the whole box.

You are equating caviar with corn flakes. No. Caviar with pea-gravel…We converts who struggled with the Catholic faith certainly do not read to “justify a cause.” If you start from zero and read your way up WITH the Church, the whole picture makes sense in a way that none of your other little scenarios possibly can. The integrity is unassailable. No. It can be assaulted. But it cannot be breached.