What was first?

[SteveVH]

Obviously the church was first. The scriptures are a written record of a pre-existing tradition. Neither are infallable and both are the words/actions of men.

Anybody that teaches that the bible is infallible or that a tradition is infallible is a Pagan. And is guilty of violating the imperative written on every mans conscinece which states that we shall have no false Gods.

The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is the word of God, therefore it contains no error concerning faith and morals. The same can be said for Sacred Tradition, which is held in equal esteem. Yes, the Church gave us the Bible, the Bible did not give us the Church, but your statements are incorrect and misleading as is your characterization that those who do not have this understanding are, therefore, Pagans.
In the case of Sacred Scripture, it is the interpreter that is either fallible or infallible, not that which is being interpreted.

 

[Heliotropium]

Obviously the church was first. The scriptures are a written record of a pre-existing tradition. Neither are infallable and both are the words/actions of men.

Anybody that teaches that the bible is infallible or that a tradition is infallible is a Pagan. And is guilty of violating the imperative written on every mans conscinece which states that we shall have no false Gods.

If nothing is infallible then how do you even know you follow the truth or even have it? Fallible churches have fallible doctrine, and all churches excluding the CC are hypocrites to the fact that the True Church possesses this mark. To say that your Church does not have infallibility in its teaching doctrine of faith and morals is to say that your Church does not have the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

What would be an example of Sacred Tradition that doesn’t say in the Holy Bible?

The Table of Contents of the Scripture. The collection of what books belong in the Bible is the most widely accepted Sacred Tradition. Most of our separated brethren accept this Sacred Tradition even though they don’t realize it.

 Do you have a list with Sacred **t**radition and Sacred **T**radition? Maybe a chart or so?

One cannot reduce a world view to a “list or a chart”. Sacred Tradition is the lived Teaching of the Apostles in the Church. It is the Word of God placed in the Church,a nd preserved infallibly there by the HS.

In the NT, it is called The Way, and it includes a perspective on how we are to understand the Scriptures. We read them through the lens of Sacred Scripture, so that we can understand them from the same point of view as the people who wrote them.

Those who have jettisoned the Sacred Tradition understand the Scriptures differently, because they read them without the benefit of the Apostolic point of view.

So you could say Jesus was against Jewish tradition (with small t) when he speaks so bold against the Pharisees in Scribes (especially in the Gospel according to St. Matthew)?

No, Jesus was not against any traditions (customs) in and of themselves. He opposed those that contradicted the Word of God.

 

[guanophore]

You really don't think that God set up a church among His chosen people? That's really a remarkable theory Ben. Let me ask you a question. You say that they, I'm assuming you mean Jews, are God's chosen people. What exactly do you think they were chosen for Ben?

We believe that Jesus meant what He said when He told the Apostles He would build His Church upon them. The Aposltes and prophets are the foundation for the Church built by Christ.

The Jews were to be a holy nation unto God, a witness to the world. I will not dispute that he intended for them to be His “called out” ones. However, Israel, as a nation, did not fulfill God’s intention that they be a light unto the world.

There were many faithful people in the old testament Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua etc. Are you saying that these had no church, religion?

The Church is that which is founded by Christ on the Apostles and prophets, so no, there was not an OT Church.

Of course they had religion. But they looked forward to a Messiah whom they never received.

Where in Romans and the gospels?

I think you know this, Richard. But, even if not, it is beyond the scope of this thread. I recommend that you start a new one.

Seperate from what?

This is also beyond the scope of the thread. The Church is called to be in the world, but not “of” it.

So, let me get this straight.
Gen.3
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You’re saying that there was no enmity between the seed of Satan and God’s children up until “Mary said yes”?

No, but that is also beyond the scope of this thread.

Gen 12:1-3, but you don't think that the Lord set up a religion, church, with these people?

He named a people to Himself, of course. Not the same as the NT Church.

Well, I gotta ask you then, how do you define church?

The Church founded by Christ is One, Holy, CAtholic, and Apostolic. Her Head is Jesus Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Heliotropium]

Jesus and the Apostles were both not against using oral traditions in their teaching.

Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition
Taken from www.scripturecatholic.com

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[PJM]

=agent_grey;7536336]Obviously the church was first. The scriptures are a written record of a pre-existing tradition. Neither are infallable and both are the words/actions of men.

Anybody that teaches that the bible is infallible or that a tradition is infallible is a Pagan. And is guilty of violating the imperative written on every mans conscinece which states that we shall have no false Gods.

I agree, with part of yor post; BUT have a question: What my friend, in your understanding of “infallible”? Clearly the bible relates Teachings and Godly mandates that MUST, in and absolute sense, be held as True. Matt. 16: 15-19; John 6; John 20:15-19 are good examples as are Mk. 19:17 an John 3:5.

** 2nd. Tim. 3:16** “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”

May God’s continued Blessings be your’s!
Pat

 

[Richard_Kastner]

God hallowed the sabbath day and blessed it, but He never required man to keep it until the Mosaic law was handed down. find me one passage Richard. Just One, that states, that God gave the commandment to keep the sabbath before moses was given it. ill help ya out. you wont find it. it does not exist.

Jesus is the creator. Right?

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

He created the Sabbath on the last day of creation. In fact the only thing that He created on the last day of creation is the day itself. THE SABBATH DAY. In fact this is the only reason that we have a seven day week, because Jesus created it that way.

Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The God that blessed the seventh day and sanctified it is Jesus. Right?

Ex.20
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The God who gave us the ten commandments, among which is the Sabbath commandment, is Jesus. Right?

Jesus says

Mark2
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

He says that the Sabbath was made (CREATED) for man (NOT JUST JEWS). This is placing the Sabbath commandment at creation. Right? As far as being under grace and not the law. Are you saying that we no longer have to keep the law.

we as Catholics worship a Living Risen Redeemer, not a Day. Peace

Why would you make a statement like this Ben? Do you think that I worship a day?

 

[PJM]

If nothing is infallible then how do you even know you follow the truth or even have it? Fallible churches have fallible doctrine, and all churches excluding the CC are hypocrites to the fact that the True Church possesses this mark. To say that your Church does not have infallibility in its teaching doctrine of faith and morals is to say that your Church does not have the Holy Spirit.

In Order for a teaching to be “Infallible” it MUST pertain to either Faith isues, or Moral Issues Only. Further it must specifialy be defind as a “Infallible pronouncement / Teaching.”

That said, a Official Teaching of these same two catagories by the Pope, or the Magisterium; or a Council of Bishops [in accord with the Pope], also MUST be Obeyed and accepted.

The Current Cde od Cnon Law:

BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

**Can. 749 §1. **By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

**Can. 753 **Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

**Can. 754 **All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

So my friend; the Catholic has a GREAT MANY Dogma’s and Doctrinal positions tht MUST be held and believed by all Catholics.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hebrews 7:12
When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well.

This new priesthood in Jesus Christ gives birth to the Church = body of Christ.

It is from the body of Christ that the memoirs of the New Testament in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ that give witness to the Liturgy, teachings of Jesus, to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to wit her members, to write the New Testament books. that do not conflict, when the Holy Spirit inspired the old testament writers to announce this fulfillment.

PJM;7531827]My dear friends in Christ;

I’m of the Opinion that the evidence of the “church” being first is in the Bible itself; beginning with Matt. 15:15-19.

The issue for me resolves aroud the Covenants God made “with His Chosen People” [The Hebrew nation.

While there is a series of such Covenants articulated in the OT [Araham. Moses, David, for example], there is only One in the NT. Mt. 26: 26-28; Mk. 14: 22-24; Lk. 22: 19-21, and 1st. Cor. 11:23-29.

Additionally God tells us the following:

Jer. 31:33 “"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

**Heb. 8: 6 **“But as it is, Christ * has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second.”

**Heb. 8: 13 **“ In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

The OT must be considered ONLY a A PART of the Bible; the “Words of God that he desires us to know, accept and live-by.” One cannot seperate the Term “Bible” without including the NT, in the defination.

While the OT letters existed before Christ Birth; they certainly are FROM GOD. Keep in mind that Jesus Himself is a PART of this same “God.” It is the NT that completes, fulfills and perfects the OT, making the NT not only “more revelant” to our times, but of Critial Importance; without which the OT would lose a great deal of it’s meaning and signifiance.

Note further that the ENTIRE NT was authored by men who are members of the CC founded by Christ. Therefore the CHURCH HAD to come first.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Esdra]

Actually Catholicism is very simple all that we believe is contained in (one paragraph) our profession of faith (Credo) which is recited at every baptism and Sunday Mass. If you go past this profession of faith you are trying too hard.

Mhm, actually I also believe in the Credo. And I guess my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in my Church as well…

There is a difference between Catholics who practice their faith and those who don’t, also it should be noted that the Catholic church is the one Church that has championed the cause for “no divorce”, no practice of homosexual acts, no sex outside of marriage and has always maintained the position on side of life never abortion. How you view others in practice of the mentioned is never Catholic teaching. Although the Catholic church is the hospital for such as these and sinners such as myself.

Concerning no sex outside marriage: I haven’t realized that much having been a Catholic. (Nearly all Austrians are Catholics, at least on the paper.) - Sex outside the marriage was the most normal thing for me ('though I didn’t practice it!), until I became a Baptist and got to know that God is against premarital sex. Same goes for divorce (I learned about that here on CAF!!). - Both are the most normal things in the world (at least in Europe)!
So you would say, well, 70% of all the Catholics in Austria are not Catholic? (Considering your sentence: "How you view others in practice of the mentioned is never Catholic teaching.)
Aren’t the believers the mirror of the Church? How should one know how to live a Catholic life, sticking to the doctrine, if there is noone who actually does?!

The Didache is a Catholic document written centuries before the reformers. Are you sure you have read the complete Didache document, even the statement of confessing ones sins before recieving the Eucharist? I don’t believe the non catholics you listed believe or follow these prescriptions of the Didache?

I’ve read the whole, yes.
Well, actually I don’t have a problem with confessing my sins before recieving the Eucharist (Going to the Lord’s table). Although I believe that there is no priest needed. One can, if he is really a child of God, go directly to Him, and He will forgive us in His mercy, if we really confess our sins with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
And actually, we do this every time before we celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
I see in no point a contradiction in Protestantism of the Didache… *[Okay, this sentence isn’t really English. Hope you understand it anyway! ] *(But this of course could also be because I read from the Protestant and not the Catholic view, as already mentioned previous.)

Interesting; never mind the other non catholics, do you believe the Eucharist to be the true body, blood of Jesus Christ present as St. Paul presents it in his epistle with a curse attached. You see these non catholics conform to these scriptures without the original Sacred Oral Tradition that is practiced by Jesus and his apostles. So to cover up breaking bread means to just break ordinary bread is not biblical teaching but a man made teaching misinterpreted apart from sacred Tradition practices. Here is Jesus handing down the Eucharist from an Oral Tradition, before He institutes the Eucharist at the Last supper; Your list of protestants reject this teaching of Jesus and Pauls to interpret them to mean symbolic which a symbolic Jesus never exists…

No, actually, I don’t really believe that the bread and the wine (grape juice) is the literal Blood and Flesh of Jesus.
For me the Lord’s Supper is, as Zwingli and Calvin and their descendent Churches teach, a meal in remembrance of what Jesus did for us. That He died on the cross for us and thus freed us from sin that we again can have a relationship to our Heavenly Father, Yahweh.

John 6:47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
**I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." **53
**Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. **56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Yes, I know these verses. I’ve read it, having been quoted a hundred times by various Catholics here, at CAF.

to be continued…

 

[Esdra]

Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, He did not come to abolish the Law or the prophets. The letter of the law dictated the covenant, the (not oral) written traditions added to these laws in order to prevent the Jews from ever breaking a Law of the covenant is what Jesus was condemning.

Yes, the traditions of the Sadduccees and Pharisees and Scribes, right?

LoL Jesus was never a sola scripturalist…Jesus brought to reality what was not written the Oral Traditions from the prophets which is the resurrection. This Oral sacred Tradition from the Old Covenant was believed by the Pharisees and rejected by the Saduccees, yet both were refuted for not recognizing their Messiah, King, High priest and Prophet.

Well, what would then be an example for Jewish oral tradition which doesn’t say in the Old Testament, but the Jews knew about and observed them?!

Btw, I don’t think the prophesies about Jesus in the OT were oral traditions or so, but more interpretation of the written text!
There are many prophesies about Christ i.e. in Isaiah, but a Jewish rabbi will certainly interpret these passages which are clear for us to be messianic completely differently!

Because the Old testament faith in the resurrection is not written in the Law, the solo scripturalist (Sadduccees) rejected this faith. Yet Jesus preached this Oral Tradition and brought the resurrection to pass.

Faith in resurrection doesn’t say in the OT?
I didn’t know that… Do you have an external source for that?

Peace be with you,

 

[Heliotropium]

So my friend; the Catholic has a GREAT MANY Dogma’s and Doctrinal positions tht MUST be held and believed by all Catholics.

God Bless,
Pat

Thank you friend but I don’t see where we were at a disagreement? That is unless you were just showing reasons for why I said what I said.

In my opinion one cannot be a Christian if they do not believe in the infallibility of the Church. If one is a Christian and doesn’t believe the infallibility of the Church then they are a hypocrite if they take the Bible as the written word of God, or if they hold fast to Ecumenical Councils.

Infallibility is the mark of the Holy Spirit and I find it fascinating how God has allowed His True Church The Catholic Church to be the only ones to profess that they have this mark of the Holy Spirit while the others openly deny it and they do so happily

 

[Heliotropium]

Well, actually I don’t have a problem with confessing my sins before recieving the Eucharist (Going to the Lord’s table). Although I believe that there is no priest needed. One can, if he is really a child of God, go directly to Him, and He will forgive us in His mercy, if we really confess our sins with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

I have a question if you don’t mind answering me. If it doesn’t matter if we confess our sins to the ministers of Gods Church then why would he give them the ability to forgive sins or retain them?

"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."–John 20:23

It should also be noted that Christ gave his apostles this authority AFTER He had already died on the cross and paid the price for all sin. Now i find that funny because I don’t see why Christ would give this authority to his apostles if it wasn’t necessary?

"Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved."–James 5:16

In fact I haven’t found one verse that says I can just ask for forgiveness myself and receive absolution. Looks like Christ is asking us to go to each other, and if you’re going to go to someone then you would defiantly want to go to the person who has been given the office and authority to forgive you of your sins (Priest, Bishop).

Just saying:thumbsup:

 

[Esdra]

I have a question if you don’t mind answering me. If it doesn’t matter if we confess our sins to the ministers of Gods Church then why would he give them the ability to forgive sins or retain them?

"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."–John 20:23

I think that the disciples were the “first Christians” - and I think that the commandment of Jesus doesn’t only apply to the apostles, but also to all other Christians (nowadays).
Priesthood for all. I think everyone can forgive sins in the name of Jesus. - Or actually, Jesus himself forgives sins, neither a Catholic priest, nor a brother or sister in Christ, whom you confess. I don’t really how to put it: Maybe, a Catholic priest, as well as a brother in Christ are only witnesses before Christ that the person confessing really feels sorry for his sins and promises to change. - Something like that. That’s what I blelieve.

It should also be noted that Christ gave his apostles this authority AFTER He had already died on the cross and paid the price for all sin. Now i find that funny because I don’t see why Christ would give this authority to his apostles if it wasn’t necessary?

Well, somehow my answer above links your point here…

"Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved."–James 5:16

Yes, one to another. - Not to a priest. There we have it.

In fact I haven’t found one verse that says I can just ask for forgiveness myself and receive absolution. Looks like Christ is asking us to go to each other, and if you’re going to go to someone then you would defiantly want to go to the person who has been given the office and authority to forgive you of your sins (Priest, Bishop).

Just saying:thumbsup:

No, of course you can’t. But Jesus does it anyway. Not a priest gives the absolution, but Jesus in His mercy.
I think this often has been a problem in the CC that priests think that they are somehow sth better than “their sheep”. - But in fact they aren’t. They are the same sinners as every other Christian as well. And I think some priests really need to get a bit more humble.
Especially in the older days here in Austria, priests nearly behaved like gods. - IMO, even worse as the Pharisees in the OT.
And this is also one of the many reasons why I went more and more away from the CC. - Until now when I am actually, more or less, a Catholic on the paper only and attending a Baptist Church. - And one thing I realised: The pastor(s) there are one thing: humble. - In contrast to some Catholic priests I know (and knew. As I am thinking a particular one who has been for 20 years the pastor in our parish; - But who died in 2004)

 

[benidict]

Jesus is the creator. Right?

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

He created the Sabbath on the last day of creation. In fact the only thing that He created on the last day of creation is the day itself. THE SABBATH DAY. In fact this is the only reason that we have a seven day week, because Jesus created it that way.

Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The God that blessed the seventh day and sanctified it is Jesus. Right?

Ex.20
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The God who gave us the ten commandments, among which is the Sabbath commandment, is Jesus. Right?

Jesus says

Mark2
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

He says that the Sabbath was made (CREATED) for man (NOT JUST JEWS). This is placing the Sabbath commandment at creation. Right? As far as being under grace and not the law. Are you saying that we no longer have to keep the law.

Why would you make a statement like this Ben? Do you think that I worship a day?

Richard Richard Richard…Not one of these passages you give, point to sabbath keeping being commanded before the Law was given on Sinai. Why was this not written when God gave his commands to Noah? Why did it have to be given to the Children of Israel, when God gave Moses the Law? because it had not been given yet. Otherwise, no such commandment would have had to be given. the Children of Israel would have already been keeping it. by all accounts they were not. It was novelty to them when it was given. as we can see, by people attempting to thwart this Law. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath, etc. And yes, I do contend that Adventism does make the Sabbath into an Idol. I will do some research into what the Adventist write more about. Christ? Or the Sabbath? Should be interesting. This is just one problem with their theology. I dont know how many times I have to say this, or the bible has to say it Richard. we are not under the Law of Moses. we are under a period of Grace, and we are to keep the Law of LOVE. This Law has 2 commandments. That we Love God above all, and Love our neighber as ourselves. By doing this, we transcend the Law of Moses. The apostles would agree with this. Again Richard, read what the apostles instructed the gentiles with in Acts. We are no longer under the Law of Moses, and the New testament is very clear on this. Im with my brother. Lets start another thread. I will let you lead the way.

 

[Dave_B]

And this is also one of the many reasons why I went more and more away from the CC. - Until now when I am actually, more or less, a Catholic on the paper only and attending a Baptist Church. - And one thing I realised: The pastor(s) there are one thing: humble. - In contrast to some Catholic priests I know (and knew. As I am thinking a particular one who has been for 20 years the pastor in our parish; - But who died in 2004)

The book of Revelation shows the heavenly liturgy figures priests in heaven who offer sacrifice, priests wearing special vestments, golden lampstands, the liturgical chant holy, holy, holy, and singing of the gloria, and alleluia, reading from a scroll of God’s word, Jesus being described as lamb of God, incense, consecrated celibates, chalices, and manna given to the faithful. What’s your take on this?

 

[Esdra]

The book of Revelation shows the heavenly liturgy figures priests in heaven who offer sacrifice, priests wearing special vestments, golden lampstands, the liturgical chant holy, holy, holy, and singing of the gloria, and alleluia, reading from a scroll of God’s word, Jesus being described as lamb of God, incense, consecrated celibates, chalices, and manna given to the faithful. What’s your take on this?

Yeah sounds good.

But one thing to consider: the book of Revelation is the youngest book in the NT. (came at last to the canon - thus there is no reading in the Orthodox masses out of it!).

And my opinion is as well that the younger a book is the least reliable it is. (considering scriptures about Jesus).

In general is the BoR a very difficult book.
SDAs i.e. use it to prove that the (R)CC is the whore of Babylon! Would you agree here? It sounds really quite logical if they explain the passages to you. I don’t agree with that point…

Of course at the end of Time when Jesus will be the ruler over the whole world, this’ll be wonderful!

 

[PJM]

=Heliotropium;7547483]Thank you friend but I don’t see where we were at a disagreement? That is unless you were just showing reasons for why I said what I said.

In my opinion one cannot be a Christian if they do not believe in the infallibility of the Church. If one is a Christian and doesn’t believe the infallibility of the Church then they are a hypocrite if they take the Bible as the written word of God, or if they hold fast to Ecumenical Councils.

Infallibility is the mark of the Holy Spirit and I find it fascinating how God has allowed His True Church The Catholic Church to be the only ones to profess that they have this mark of the Holy Spirit while the others openly deny it and they do so happily

Thanks,

Pat

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And my opinion is as well that the younger a book is the least reliable it is.

This is actually how many Catholics feel about Churches.

 

[Esdra]

This is actually how many Catholics feel about Churches.

Yeah…

I believe that the Reformators did the right thing: They went “ad fontes” (to the sources). (i.e. when translating the Bible; remember: The RCC is still using the Vulgate to translate the Bible in modern languages?!)

So, actually, I still somehow think that the Reformators sort of (as they, and many other ministers in their manner claim) have “restored” the true faith.

I think the CC has too long relied on tradition… (Actually, the whole middle-ages. The CC was even against the “theory” of the heliocentric world view. - Which we in the meantime know is very true. Kopernikus, Galileo Galilei…) This is what I love the spirit of the Renaissance so. Man, this is really one of my most favourite epochs in history.

I think I’ve made my point clear!