Why do non-Catholics try to use our Scriptures against us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GregoryPalamas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am confused. A priest used a swear adjective to me to describe the Bible. Many statements say that Scripture is explained in the light of Tradition. How much ownership of Scripture does the Church hold?
chimera
All of it including the books that were left out.
Read David Currie book ‘Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic’ Ignatious press and he has a lot in depth of scriptual authority .
Next time you see that priest tell him he must be mistaken to be swearring about the word of God. Easter Blessings Dessert
 
colliric couldn’t produce a single example of a DIRECT quote of Tobit, anywhere in the New Testament, now he’s thrown out a smoke screen of bluster harumph harumph:thumbsup:

Matthew 22:29

29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
 
Dessert,
Who’s your brother, baby! 😃
cg99
Used of family members (Gen 47;1)
People of the same nationality (Ex 2;11)
and those who have a special kinship (Acts 20;32)
Apparently aware of difficulties at Ephesies and neighboring areas, Paul calls the presbyters together at Miletus, about 30 miles from Ephesus. He reminds them of the dedication to the gospel(18-21) , speaks of what he is about to suffer for the gospel(22-27), and admonishes them to quard the community against false prophets, ssure to arise upon his departure(28-31). He concludes by citing a saying of Jesus(35) not recorded in the gospel tradition. Luke presents this farewekk to the Ephysians presbyters as Paul’s last will and testament.
(32) And now I commend you to God and to that gracious word of his that can build you up and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated.
Dessert
 
Then the Vulgate came and stayed at the top for 1200 years until some German dude decided he didn’t like some bits of the bible and tossed them out and came up with an “edited” bible which he sold as if it was 'full"
Your fundamental lack of respect is appalling and uncalled-for. Martin Luther was not a ‘German dude’ and you would not expect me to apply that misnomer to Pope Benedict XVI. You would feel hurt, angry and frustrated, if you had any sensitivity at all.

In fact, deutrocanon/apocrypha were not deleted by Luther. They are in his translation of the scriptures into German, though he did not regard them as Canon. They are also in the original KJV (though not regarded as Canon) where they were placed between the OT and the NT.

Jabulani
 
Your position is meaningless.

CDL
And you sir, or madam, are alas a fool.

I have given evidence, information, ideas. I have refused to take a position because it is unwise to do so without a great deal more information, research, analysis, prayer and contemplation. It is evident this kind of deduction is outside your paradigm. I am also reluctant to impose my opinion - which you might unwisely call a ‘position’ - on others who are struggling to find the truth.

**I would recommend strongly that the thread continue without paying further attention to this person who seems to be using the thread for his own adrenalin rush. **

The kind of conflict he promotes, his blatant attempt to focus the attention of the thread on his uninformed opinions, is inappropriate to this Forum and unChristian in the extreme.

Jabulani
 
dessert,

You lost me on that last one. What is your point and what does it have to say about 1 John 4:19-20?

very respectfully yours,
cg99
 
And you sir, or madam, are alas a fool.
The kind of conflict he promotes, his blatant attempt to focus the attention of the thread on his uninformed opinions, is inappropriate to this Forum and unChristian in the extreme.

Jabulani
40 posts. Such wisdom.

CDL
 
“The Crowning actually occurred after the woman was taken up to heaven having been “given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent” but when she reappeared to be part of the vision she was with the crown.”
How can the “flash-back” also be the “crowning… after”? If the mother has a crown from afterwards, why is Christ only the pregnancy and a child at that coronation time? Christ says that his vision is future. With all authority after his resurrection, he says he is just a pregnancy?
chimera
 
“The Crowning actually occurred after the woman was taken up to heaven having been “given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent” but when she reappeared to be part of the vision she was with the crown.”
How can the “flash-back” also be the “crowning… after”? If the mother has a crown from afterwards, why is Christ only the pregnancy and a child at that coronation time? Christ says that his vision is future. With all authority after his resurrection, he says he is just a pregnancy?
Basically because it’s a vision. Prophecies and visions are rich in symbolism, and need to be interpreted to find out what God is telling you in that experience.
 
colliric couldn’t produce a single example of a DIRECT quote of Tobit, anywhere in the New Testament, now he’s thrown out a smoke screen of bluster harumph harumph:thumbsup:

Matthew 22:29

29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
ok so you want a direct quotes…

“Seven angels”… that’s the direct quote for you! hehe!

But seriously now, if you can’t read that as being the same doctrine repeated you are seriously in error and are twisting scripture yourself to fit your protestant interpretation of Jesus when in fact the apostle john validates Tobit chapter 12 by difrectly repeating doctrine from it in a way which is rather blunt. It is in fact you are not willing to accept the blatant and straightforward repeating of deuterocanon doctrine and therefore in error.

Remember this… The Deuterocanon was IN the very first official listing of books which made up the christian Holy Bible as part of the Old Testament. It was, contrary to popular belief, NOT added by the Pope in the 16th century.
 
A previous post said:“The narrative that follows actually recounts the life of Jesus and what was happening to Mary during that time”
What is symbolized by Mary being crowned with sun and stars, and moon beneath her feet, while Jesus with the glory of Son of God has nothing except being a child? That would reject God’s giving “all power in heaven and in earth” to Jesus. Matt. 28.18.
chimera
 
Your fundamental lack of respect is appalling and uncalled-for. Martin Luther was not a ‘German dude’ and you would not expect me to apply that misnomer to Pope Benedict XVI. You would feel hurt, angry and frustrated, if you had any sensitivity at all.

In fact, deutrocanon/apocrypha were not deleted by Luther. They are in his translation of the scriptures into German, though he did not regard them as Canon. They are also in the original KJV (though not regarded as Canon) where they were placed between the OT and the NT.

Jabulani
I will not respect a person who I believe is a false prophet… and who took these books out of the old testament. I blame his action for misleading Protestants for 400 years and for the inevitable expelling of these very holy books from the majority of modern day protestant bibles. In fact if protestants had not gone down that path, which was inevitable once he had done that, I would not have held such a high degree of disrespect for his initial actions.

This does not mean I do not love and respect protestants… I simply think it is of utmost importance to their savation that they understand they are wrong and have been conditioned to ignore the far more grounded and correct teachings of the church built upon the Rock of St. Peter.

Yes I would be hurt if someone attacked the pope in such way, but I complealty understand why they would do so. It does not mean I can stand on the sidelines as I watch protestants do what they have accused us of doing… Deleting holy scripture and editing the bible to suit their own ends and interpretations… Heck Luther wanted to make Revelations apocrypha too!
 
A previous post said:“The narrative that follows actually recounts the life of Jesus and what was happening to Mary during that time”
What is symbolized by Mary being crowned with sun and stars, and moon beneath her feet, while Jesus with the glory of Son of God has nothing except being a child? That would reject God’s giving “all power in heaven and in earth” to Jesus. Matt. 28.18.
chimera
Mary was the new ark of the Covenant, the second eve and created in the same manner as all human beings are, but god filled her with grace at her birth so that she could be worthy of birthing his son, Christ. That is the simple answer, and in order to make this point clear to john he needed to see her once again as she was in heaven, and once again see the events of the past played out in front of him so he could finally understand her complete role in the events, as defined completely by God. She was God’s new Ark of the covenant.

Sorry but that does not go against Matthew 28:18 in any way at all… this “replay” was for the benefit of John’s understanding of why and how God used Mary and what happened to Mary after she was taken away.
 
40 posts. Such wisdom.

CDL
Snarky is a really useful adjective.

I have been posting for four weeks or less.

I do not sit with my head in the monitor, but live a real life.

Wisdom we learn through experience of the real world - out there.

I only post when I think I have something useful to say.

Insulting others is not high on my list of priorities as a Christian.

Sanctimonious is also a useful adjective, easily applied.
 
I will not respect a person who I believe is a false prophet… and who took these books out of the old testament. I blame his action for misleading Protestants for 400 years and for the inevitable expelling of these very holy books from the majority of modern day protestant bibles. In fact if protestants had not gone down that path, which was inevitable once he had done that, I would not have held such a high degree of disrespect for his initial actions.

This does not mean I do not love and respect protestants… I simply think it is of utmost importance to their savation that they understand they are wrong and have been conditioned to ignore the far more grounded and correct teachings of the church built upon the Rock of St. Peter.

Yes I would be hurt if someone attacked the pope in such way, but I complealty understand why they would do so. It does not mean I can stand on the sidelines as I watch protestants do what they have accused us of doing… Deleting holy scripture and editing the bible to suit their own ends and interpretations… Heck Luther wanted to make Revelations apocrypha too!
Those who are baptised into the reformed church faith do not believe they are wrong. They believe they are right. And I believe they have the right to believe they are right. They have the right to choose their scriptures as they did, and nothing the Catholic Church and its adherents can say will change that.

What is important is that all Christians - Catholics and those who adhere to protestantism - follow Christ’s example, which is at the core of our life as Christians.

I suppose, sweet friend, I do not see things in black and white, but in textured shades of grey. I do not think Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists are bound for hell, and even if they were, it is not my job to stomp around feeling angry about it. It is my job to follow the example of Christ, and to love, heal and serve.

And I would not debase my relationship with a Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew or a Buddhist (all in my networks of friends) by using rash language, or cracking jokes about them. In Canada, we used to make jokes about Newfies (those who live on the island province of Newfoundland), and Poles (from Poland). Here in South Africa, it was acceptable to make jokes about stupid Piet van der Merwe, the name always used for the mentally-challenged idiot at the core of the joke. On this Forum, I have seen reformed church ministers referred to as ‘Billy Bob’ - a clearly derogatory name.

But we all know now that making jokes of this kind, however innocent, does perpetuate a bias towards such people and ultimately amounts to bigotry. End of lesson! (I don’t think you needed it, but I felt like writing it.)

We are all God’s people. We have free will. We are all divine - we have the spark of divinity in each of us - and we are all equally divine. We must respect that.

Blessings

Jabulani
 
Snarky is a really useful adjective.

I have been posting for four weeks or less.

I do not sit with my head in the monitor, but live a real life.

Wisdom we learn through experience of the real world - out there.

I only post when I think I have something useful to say.

Insulting others is not high on my list of priorities as a Christian.

Sanctimonious is also a useful adjective, easily applied.
So, you insult people so that they will learn not to insult people by using your insulting example. I note that you have worked your way up to 50 posts. Fascinating. Why don’t you speak to the subject of the thread, rather than waste your time and ours with examples of your imagined moral superiority?

CDL
 
Those who are baptised into the reformed church faith do not believe they are wrong. They believe they are right. And I believe they have the right to believe they are right. They have the right to choose their scriptures as they did, and nothing the Catholic Church and its adherents can say will change that.

What is important is that all Christians - Catholics and those who adhere to protestantism - follow Christ’s example, which is at the core of our life as Christians.

I suppose, sweet friend, I do not see things in black and white, but in textured shades of grey. I do not think Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists are bound for hell, and even if they were, it is not my job to stomp around feeling angry about it. It is my job to follow the example of Christ, and to love, heal and serve.

And I would not debase my relationship with a Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew or a Buddhist (all in my networks of friends) by using rash language, or cracking jokes about them. In Canada, we used to make jokes about Newfies (those who live on the island province of Newfoundland), and Poles (from Poland). Here in South Africa, it was acceptable to make jokes about stupid Piet van der Merwe, the name always used for the mentally-challenged idiot at the core of the joke. On this Forum, I have seen reformed church ministers referred to as ‘Billy Bob’ - a clearly derogatory name.

But we all know now that making jokes of this kind, however innocent, does perpetuate a bias towards such people and ultimately amounts to bigotry. End of lesson! (I don’t think you needed it, but I felt like writing it.)

We are all God’s people. We have free will. We are all divine - we have the spark of divinity in each of us - and we are all equally divine. We must respect that.

Blessings

Jabulani
I would gather that you believe that the moon is made out of green cheese.

CDL
 
“Sorry but that does not go against Matthew 28:18 in any way at all… this “replay” was for the benefit of John’s understanding of why and how God used Mary and what happened to Mary after she was taken away.”
That would make Mary just a woman who has an ordinary child who dies, like any other child who is said to go to heaven. My q. was why did the woman have such total coronation (sun,moon,stars) leaving no symbol for the child? Even the 7 congregations that Jesus earlier described were “lampstands” and they were mortal men. Jesus there said he was “prince (Greek “arkon”) of the kings of the earth”. Jesus had conquered Satan by the time he ascended to heaven, so why does it say he was “snatched, caught” away from the dragon which was about to devour him?
 
“Sorry but that does not go against Matthew 28:18 in any way at all… this “replay” was for the benefit of John’s understanding of why and how God used Mary and what happened to Mary after she was taken away.”
That would make Mary just a woman who has an ordinary child who dies, like any other child who is said to go to heaven. My q. was why did the woman have such total coronation (sun,moon,stars) leaving no symbol for the child? Even the 7 congregations that Jesus earlier described were “lampstands” and they were mortal men. Jesus there said he was “prince (Greek “arkon”) of the kings of the earth”. Jesus had conquered Satan by the time he ascended to heaven, so why does it say he was “snatched, caught” away from the dragon which was about to devour him?
No, that’s not true at all, it made her “Full of Grace”. God gave her Grace so that she could birth his son and be worthy of the honour. That makes he far from a normal human being, that makes her the 2nd and perfected eve, sinless.

Also why would there need to be symbol for the child? This entire passage is about the role of Mary, not the role of Jesus after all he is the one giving John the vision and he is the one choosing to show John the story of Mary instead of his own.

But even so It shows that he departed for heaven to be on the throne well before she was given wings. There is your symbolism, he was the first enter and to sit on the throne in heaven.

Also as the passage clearly shows, Satan has a degree of dominion on the planet earth, even when he was defeated of his sinfull influence on human beings and of his power over death. He does not get thrown into the eternal fire until the end of time when Christ returns to complete the victory. What that passage says to me is that God the father resurrected his own son and the son used the power given him from the father to ascend into heaven in order to defeat Satan’s evil influence. He was “snatched” by his father in order to defeat Satan and wound him. This power was Jesus’s from the very beginning, but it comes from his father.

This passage also reminds me of the garden of Gethsemene, when Jesus had his second encounter with Satan, Satan continually attacked Jesus with temptation and Jesus refused to give in. Satan still has the power to do such things to all believers, but we now have the Holy Spirit to guide us and to oppose him. Even so Satan can attack strongly, especially in the Roman Catholic belief, his attacks can required the ancient Sacramental of Exorcism to be performed. Jesus was not immune to being Attacked, but he was immune to the actual attacks themselves.

Satan who still existed on this planet but was wounded, steped up his attacks on the christian faithfull, angry with them, He started with Mary and God gave her wings and took her up to heaven in a diffrent manner. He handed her new wings in order that he could take her himself into heaven by giving her the wings, basically he said “I’ll give you these so you can join me straight away after your death”. Jesus was given the power to ascend by himself without help. Mary was not given the power to do that, she was taken up to heaven by way of god bestowing “wings” well after birth.

Remember it is Jesus who shows John this whole vision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top