V
valient_Lucy
Guest
So, if the Bible is not the primary source of revelation, as you argue, then what is the primary source? Our consciences?
It sounds as though you are saying that WE are the source of divine revelation.
- Status
It sounds as though you are saying that WE are the source of divine revelation.
O
Odell
Guest
regarding John 16 I would like you to respond to Philthys response to John 16. You have failed to do so.
Yes you can come to the knowledge of the truth
but you dont seem like you are willing to come to it John.
And how was it revealed to the common man? Was it some man who starts his own denominaiton by interpriting the bible for himself with out going to the Church? No it was revealed to those who were part of the Chruch. Lets see what the bible says.
(1Cor 1:1-2) Paul, called to be an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God that is in Corinth…
It was revealed from an Apostle to the Chruch of the Apostle with common men in it.
(1Cor1:10)" I urge you brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, taht all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no devisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."
This same Church believed all the same thing even the same mind. so the little non esentials count. you cant disagree with anything the true Chruch claims to be true. But acording to you the non esential are ok to disagree with. The baptist Church down the road is still part of the same Chruch as long as you believe in the esentials right. Isnt this what you mean by a spiritual unity a spiritual Chruch? Yes or No?
Also notice that Paul was called to be an apostle but was not an original apostle. How can this be John. Oh Oh I know apostolic succession.
Paul would not isolate himself everyone knew he was an apostle. And what is it that an apostle does, preach the word of God that was passed on to him. Thats how the Holy Spirit works John. Truth is passed on by the Holy Spirit threw the Apostles to the Church of ordinary men. Not from your PRIVATE INTERPRITATION.
Please clarify.
You didnt get it from the Apostles witch is what the Chruch was founded on. Now this is re-laying a foundation.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Philthy,
Secondly, as you so adamantly stated, the Catholic church holds marriage in such high esteem that it is a Sacrament. Since a sacrament (according to the Catholic Church) is a means to grace, why would Jesus in Matt. 9:10-12 allude to the fact that some have the gift of continency and need not to marry. By this teaching of Jesus, it would seem that to marry would actually be a result of a deficiency in man.
If marriage is allowed to compensate for a deficiency, how can the Catholic Church claim it as a sacrament? Thus it seems that according to the words of Jesus, there are very few who can live a chaste life… and those are the ones who have received special grace to do so.
Thirdly, by what authority does the Catholic church presumptuously prohibit priests from marrying, or the presbytery from engaging in marital activities? If it is God that gives grace, and that to whomever He will, what ground does the Catholic Church have to prohibit a priest, or deacon from partaking in that which has been allowed to compensate for his deficiency?
John
www.gideonsword.net
In the first place, I didn’t specify who the Catholic Church fobade to partake in marriage. I don’t think anyone would make such an elementary accusation, I assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to the Priests.
Secondly, as you so adamantly stated, the Catholic church holds marriage in such high esteem that it is a Sacrament. Since a sacrament (according to the Catholic Church) is a means to grace, why would Jesus in Matt. 9:10-12 allude to the fact that some have the gift of continency and need not to marry. By this teaching of Jesus, it would seem that to marry would actually be a result of a deficiency in man.
If marriage is allowed to compensate for a deficiency, how can the Catholic Church claim it as a sacrament? Thus it seems that according to the words of Jesus, there are very few who can live a chaste life… and those are the ones who have received special grace to do so.
Thirdly, by what authority does the Catholic church presumptuously prohibit priests from marrying, or the presbytery from engaging in marital activities? If it is God that gives grace, and that to whomever He will, what ground does the Catholic Church have to prohibit a priest, or deacon from partaking in that which has been allowed to compensate for his deficiency?
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Philthy,
The truth is there for you… all you have to do is accept it.
John
www.gideonsword.net
I already did that in post #170… I don’t think some people are really reading my posts…
I answered that too… in post #79, and I gave proof from your own ECF’s to the existence of the New Testament scripture compiled with the Old Testament in the 2nd century… check the resources and see for yourself.
Again, that is in reference to your first question to me regarding John 16:13. I gave a viable explanation for this…
The truth is there for you… all you have to do is accept it.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Valient Lucy,
Before you accuse me of being an existentialist I would like to quote a portion of my book “The Theocracy Conspiracy” for you…
www.gideonsword.net
Well here we are at over 180 posts to this thread and I predicted this question would come out in the first 50.
Before you accuse me of being an existentialist I would like to quote a portion of my book “The Theocracy Conspiracy” for you…
As I quoted in bold above, our theology and perspective doesn’t come from us… it comes from God…
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Odell,
Paul even states that the house of Chloe told him that there ‘were’ contentions among the church of Corinth… were they a false church then?
It would be a rediculous assertion to claim that the particular Church (assembly) that I am a member of would be void of contention, or disagreements… even considering the “non-essentials” that you alluded to.
And it is also a rediculous assertion that every Catholic parishioner is in perfect harmony in all truth. The very existence of Canon Law is a testimony to the fact that there will be disagreements and contentions.
The only position you could take in this particular argument is that of Diest philosophy, by which you would assert that those contentions between parishoners “especially the non-essentials” are the result of God’s sovereign will… which is a direct contradiction of scripture where Paul verifies God’s desire in 1 Corinthians 1:10.
John
www.gideonsword.net
You are actually claiming that since Paul urged the church in Corinth to “be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”, that it would be impossible then for the “true church” to have contentions?
Paul even states that the house of Chloe told him that there ‘were’ contentions among the church of Corinth… were they a false church then?
It would be a rediculous assertion to claim that the particular Church (assembly) that I am a member of would be void of contention, or disagreements… even considering the “non-essentials” that you alluded to.
And it is also a rediculous assertion that every Catholic parishioner is in perfect harmony in all truth. The very existence of Canon Law is a testimony to the fact that there will be disagreements and contentions.
The only position you could take in this particular argument is that of Diest philosophy, by which you would assert that those contentions between parishoners “especially the non-essentials” are the result of God’s sovereign will… which is a direct contradiction of scripture where Paul verifies God’s desire in 1 Corinthians 1:10.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Odell,
The 12 Apostles were the foundation… and we have learned from the source of that teaching… The Catholic church gets the information 2nd hand, 3rd hand, 4th, 5th, etc…
The “true church” is built on the original foundation of the 12 Apostles…
www.gideonsword.net
My doctrine, and those who I associate myself with have been taught their doctrine by a Holy Spirit guided interpretation of God inspired scripture. That scripture which was inspired by God through the Apostles and obediently written for us to read today.
The 12 Apostles were the foundation… and we have learned from the source of that teaching… The Catholic church gets the information 2nd hand, 3rd hand, 4th, 5th, etc…
The “true church” is built on the original foundation of the 12 Apostles…
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Philthy, and Odell,
I perceive that you, Philthy are Latin Rite by your previously quoted statement (top). You said the Latin Rite has a “discipline” of having celibate preists… but I have shown that it is not a “discipline” but a “law”… which “forbids marrying”.
John
www.gideonsword.net
Odell made the statement…
Then I quoted the Canon Law…
Either I am mistaken, and the two of you (Odell, and Philthy) are Eastern Orthodox, or you are using the Eastern Rite’s customs as a desperate way out of a losing argument.
I perceive that you, Philthy are Latin Rite by your previously quoted statement (top). You said the Latin Rite has a “discipline” of having celibate preists… but I have shown that it is not a “discipline” but a “law”… which “forbids marrying”.
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
Why are there no eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom in the Baptist religion?
E
Eden
Guest
Why is celibacy for the sake of the kingdom scorned, the sacrament of matrimony denied and divorce, remarriage and contraception permitted in the Baptist religion? The Baptist denominations are not following the Word of God.
O
Odell
Guest
Its amazing that those so few are in the Cahtolic Church and not yours.
What athoriry did Paul have?
(1 Cor7:35)
you didnt do a very good job refuting Philthy
where is it at within your own interpritation. There are plenty out there who claim there interpritation is correct also but tottlay disagree with you.
I tell you we have the truth and we aint going no where.
Your doctrine is doctrine of men that has directly contradicted scripture.
Amen and the true Chruch still excest today.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Please remain on topic with all posts or this thread will be closed.
O
Odell
Guest
Yes just as it was with the apostles when Jesus was there. Are you saying that the apostles disagred on matter of faith and morals?
maybe so I dont know the verse but it is clear that Paul wants them to think the same mind in his letter to the corenths. No where in that verse does he say it is acceptiable to have contentions does he?
If the Holy Spirit lead you all as you claim that you do. Then you wouldnt have contentions when it comes to faith and morals. Would you? Do you claim that the Holy Spirit leads you both into disagreement?
They would be unless you are in perfict harmony with the Church. I never said that there would not be people in the Church who diasagree with the Church. But the Church is clear on what it teaches. If everyone belived what the Chruch teaches then ther would not be any contentions now would it?
I dont get this are you saying that it is Gods willl that will that we dont all agree? Sorry im lost here please clarify
P
Philthy
Guest
Yes, you mispoke - Im not surprised that your apology comes in the form of belittling my intelligence. You are never wrong, and if you are someone else is at fault.
Your further squirming gets you nowhere. All priests CHOOSE of their own free will to forsake marriage for the priesthood. It is a choice THEY make. If they dont wish to be a priest they are free to marry. If they wish to marry they cannot remain a priest - very simple.
The rest of your comments were not worth reading, let alone addressing in this thread.
P
Philthy
Guest
The old wine and new wine distinction was another poorly articulated, intellectually challenged justification for your personal traditions - the horse is alive and kicking.
P
Philthy
Guest
ba:
Oh we read it alright - it just makes no sense. I responded to your rebuttal and now you simply dodge. It is an undeniable fact that John 16 occurred at the last supper when only the Apostles and Christ were present. There is no further discussion regarding that verse. You simply cant admit when your wrong…
ba:
The whole point to the discussion is that the bible did not simply compose itself and it was not directly handed to us by God(like the 10 commandments) It came through the Church, was protected by the Church and preserved by the Church. What good is a 2nd century proof to your argument? It certainly doesnt precede the existence of the Catholic Church - we know that from the same ECFs you are quoting. Your claim to “proofs” is disingenuous.
ba:
A viable explanation does not mean it is the truth - it simply appeases your intellect and bias towards the Catholic Church. In my opinion, your explanation is not even viable regarding John 16:13 - I read your posts, I read your articles - presumption upon presumption mixed with poor logic is what I see.
E
Eden
Guest
Can someone direct me to the post # in which bibleapologist discusses “old wine” and “new wine” or give me a synopsis of this “distinction the Catholic Church is missing”? I’ve tried weeding through this thread but am not finding that particular topic in-depth. Thanks.
O
Odell
Guest
The True Chruch want. There may be a member in the Church who disagree with the Church therefore you have contentions with the True Church. But one Church will not contradict the other Church if they are all part of the One True Church.
So are you sugesting that it is ok to have divisions in the True Church? Did the apostles disargree on matters of faith and morals?
I dont know the verse but I dont doubt that there was contentions among the church in Corinth. But that does not change what the Church tought. I know you did not say that the Church of Corinth has contentions with another Church down the road. (Or another village) What you just quoted shows that there was content among the members of a Chruch. But does Paul say that, that is an ok thing. I kind of doubt it, since he tell us in the letter to the Corinthians to be one MIND. But how could they possible be one mind if there was no authority to go too.
I never said that you wouldnt have content in your assembley. Paul says you shouldnt and that you should be one in mind. That is what you are there for John, the preacher shepherd of your flock. You should keep them unified you should be the one they turn to when there is content. To keep them one in mind.
But see Jesus founded only one Church. And we have someone we can go too in our Church the Pope. Just as your Church has you. You are acting as Pope for your own individual flock. But lets say someone has content in your Church they turn to you the shepherd for the truth. But they cant except it. Its ok acording to your theology for him to go to the other True Church down the road to a different shepherd to a different flock. How is it that this is ok? How are people going to find the truth if they are confused to even where to find it? Which makes more since That Jesus founded a Chruch with one shepherd or a Chruch with 1,000s+ shepherds that all disagree somewhere down the line.
If all True Chruches have some content with one another that would mean that some are wrong somewhere down the line on some issue, right? You cnat disagree with that. So you are saying that withen the true Church there is going to be some error.
But I have a great solution to your problem John. You can take bits and pieces form all those True Churches that you believe to be true and start your own denomination. And then you will have the Church that will have no false teachings.
Or you could try the alternate method and come to the Church Jesus started who has the fullness of truth in which non of its teachings are false.
When the Chruch excested with the 12 apostles who did people turn to for truth the apostles right? How much since would it make if 6 went one way teaching differently from the other 6 what six would you go to for the truth?
You see that the One Chruch thing would not be logical in this situation. So what is the difference with your flock believing something totally different from the flock you consider part of the true Church also. There is no unity there. Truth can not be devided.
again they would be in perfect harmony in all truth if they believed all the Chruch teaches. But they can have content with the Chruchs teachings but if they wanted to be one, or one in mind all they would have to do is accept the teachings of the Chruch.
People could have had content with Paul but I doubt he would have said its ok you still believe Jesus died for you so you are still part of my Church.
I really dont get this are you sugesting that it is Gods will that we disagree on matters of faith and morals?
Please clarify
O
Odell
Guest
sorry just realized that I posted one just like this in response to that particular thred. But I think I may have coverd some things in this one that I did not do in the other
sorry.
sorry.
O
Odell
Guest
Oh we read it alright - it just makes no sense. I responded to your rebuttal and now you simply dodge. It is an undeniable fact that John 16 occurred at the last supper when only the Apostles and Christ were present. There is no further discussion regarding that verse. You simply cant admit when your wrong…
Im waiting too. He never even talked about what you had said about the verse.
- Status