S
SoonerServant
Guest
Not to sound like I’m backing down, but this is getting way off the subject. I’d love to continue this in another thread though.
- Status
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Then you’ve just used a scripture out of context to prove a point. It holds no water. The verse is talking about confessing your sins to your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. In order to relieve your contience so that your prayers are not burdened.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
You’ve also taken John out of context. This gift was not actually for forgiving sins,(only Jesus has this right) but rather the Apostles ability to see the sin in someone and cast judgement on them, as seen with Peter in the story of Safira and Ananias. There are a couple more that I would need to look up.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
And don’t you dare question my honesty. You have no right or evidence. Oh, that’s right, Catholics don’t need either to make assumptions.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Well, yes and no
Who wrote Hebrews? No one knows. And then there is Mark, Luke and Jude who were not Apostles. The NT books had to be written or attributed to an Apostle, so attributing a NT book to an Apostle without knowing the author takes oral Apostolic Tradition, only passed down in the Catholic Church (Jesus’ Church)Well, again not exactly. All revelation ceased after the death of the last Apostle, but knowing or delving into “truth” hasn’t stopped and a classic example of this is the Trinity. Also, according to your position one would have to ask the question, which church? With which correct doctrine(s)?
So…that would mean that only those who agree with your interpretation of Scripture have a “reasoning” and “logical” brain since you know the context. And then I’d like to ask who wrote that concordance? Does having a concordance the criteria for having the correct context of Scripture? And if I have a concordance that differs from yours is mine wrong even though I have a concordance? Again, your logic doesn’t add up
M
MrS
Guest
A
anamchara
Guest
I don’t think CM meant to make you feel as though he was questioning your honesty.
I’ve watched this thread from a distance the last few days sooner, you’ve held your own and against several people at once at times. I don’t always farewell when that happens to me
You seem like a very honest and genuine person.It’s hard to wrap your mind around Purgatory, I think it’s a matter of faith not facts. I am probably going to get slammed for saying that
as my dh on here said, it seems a bit vague.But, it would make sense for God to have a bit of a wee shower before we enter through the gates
some perhaps longer shower than others…
M
MrS
Guest
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Wrong, everyone one has one. (save the mentally challenged)Well, yes and no
I thought I made it clear when I said the books were set side by side and compared. If these books had too many differences, they would not have been included.
Well, again not exactly. All revelation ceased after the death of the last Apostle, but knowing or delving into “truth” hasn’t stopped and a classic example of this is the Trinity. Also, according to your position one would have to ask the question, which church? With which correct doctrine(s)?
You think that nobody knew this until recently? this was common knowledge. They had the OT scriptures where most of the parallels are found.
So…that would mean that only those who agree with your interpretation of Scripture have a “reasoning” and “logical” brain since you know the context. And then I’d like to ask who wrote that concordance? Does having a concordance the criteria for having the correct context of Scripture? And if I have a concordance that differs from yours is mine wrong even though I have a concordance? Again, your logic doesn’t add up
No, I said “coupled with” a logical and reasoning brain. I don’t have the 1500 plus years of history cough brainwashing pumped in to my head from my entrance into christianity. And, on the suject of “church” History lesson time: This word does not exist in any Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Though the word “church” is indeed found in modern Bibles it is due in part to the manipulation of the first translations into common tongue overseen by the Catholics of the Roman Empire. The Greek “eklisia” is in fact the word which has been replaced by “church”. The word eklisia means “called out” and is actually a combination of two Greek words “ek” meaning out and “klaeo” meaning call. Eklisia means therefore those who have been called out of the earth by God into His kingdom.
Church is a word which is the corrupted form of the Greek “kuriakos” which means belonging to the Lord. The root for kuriakos is “kurios” which simply means “supreme in authority”.
Many do not realize that they have been lied to and remain steadfast in the conviction that they somehow merit more of God’s favor going to some structure or designated place of meeting. The Roman empire was able to institutionalize what they called Christianity by preventing the masses from reading Scripture. By declaring itself the “head” of the religion instead of Christ and causeing the ignorant to gather in places they called churches, the lie became so powerful that it is still felt today.
It is easy to see how the Catholic Church , which by the way means “universal authority” controlled the masses and hid the Good News. You are “called out” of the world no matter where you are or what building you happen to be in. Any human being with the ability to read can purchase their own copy of any good concordance with a Greek dictionary to prove this for themselves.
M
MrS
Guest
which is totally against the admonition in Scripture against self interpretations.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
For example:
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” Mt. 16:16-20
(I know how much you Catholics like this one.)
Many, including Catholics, believe that the word “Hades” is referring to Hell, but in fact, it is referring to the grave or death. If everyone knew this, it would clear up a lot of debate.
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” Mt. 16:16-20
(I know how much you Catholics like this one.)
Many, including Catholics, believe that the word “Hades” is referring to Hell, but in fact, it is referring to the grave or death. If everyone knew this, it would clear up a lot of debate.
M
MrS
Guest
wrong, wrong, and wrong.
If you know the story of the big rock at Caesar Phillipi, and the imposing structure that it was
if you know that is was located in probably the most pagan of pagan lands
if you know that there was/is a “gate” leading to the wellspring deep in the earth
if you know that the niches in the rock were “altars” to the god Pan
if you know that Jesus selected this site for the recognition it would give and the complete opposite direction He was taking with His proclaimation
if you know He is promising that the gates of (you pick) will NOT PREVAIL…
it seems clear that He is making a promise of protection for this Church He will build on the new Rock - Peter.
So if you like grave or death… plug it in… The Church will live… death will not prevail over it.
If you like hell - the home of lies and deceit… The Church will live… lies will not prevail
In truth… nothing will prevail over the Truth in the Church.
context, context, context…
just prior to Matthew 16:18 Peter walks on water… Jesus supports only him
even after M16:18 we see that Peter is singled out for his primacy.
now… why not get back to the cleansing mercy of Purgatory… a state of being, not a “place” which we (at least those of us who die imperfect) will ge so grateful for.
.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Indeed, vague, at best.I don’t think CM meant to make you feel as though he was questioning your honesty.
I’ve watched this thread from a distance the last few days sooner, you’ve held your own and against several people at once at times. I don’t always farewell when that happens to me
It’s hard to wrap your mind around Purgatory, I think it’s a matter of faith not facts. I am probably going to get slammed for saying that
But, it would make sense for God to have a bit of a wee shower before we enter through the gates
S
SoonerServant
Guest
In that context it would be a bit redundant, don’t you think. I mean we already know that God will triumph over Hell. So why repeat it. They didn’t, however, know that Jesus would be killed and raise, himself, from the dead. Btw, I already showed you my stance on what is now considered to be the true “church”. That is just a made up word. So you can stop calling yourselves that. The Roman Catholic Called Out, would be more gramatically correct.
A
adrift
Guest
You made the same claim here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1863906#post1863906
I answered but you have not responded. No it is not referring to the grave.
You forget the word gates. It is true that the word comes from Greek mythology, To use the allusion means that it is a place where souls go. Jesus preached there are you saying he preached to a grave, to death?
A
adrift
Guest
B
Bishopite
Guest
Ok, now let’s use that logic and reasoning and think through what you are actually saying. What you are saying is that anyone with a logical and reasoning brain can know the context of Scripture which SAYS…again think through this one…it means that anyone that doesn’t agree with you doesn’t have logical nor reasoning brain. You follow?
It is said that bad philosophy leads to bad theology and I can see why.
What you are engaging in is called an adhominem argument. Perhaps you could look that up on your concordance although its probably not there since it is a L A T I N word Oh perhaps you know latin?Right even we Catholics know that, huh.
I’ll tell you what “Catholic” means?
Yeah, I see what you are saying, huh…its not like the Bible in Hebrews 10:25 says anything about getting together to worship…"**We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, **but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near."
And you honestly think Jesus would allow that for 1500 years? Maybe your Jesus but not mine!
Wow, you really know your Greek words. Gosh, can you tell me what constitutes a “good” concordance?
Oh, yeah before I forget, here is what “Catholic” actually means…
"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:** “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations** (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1). "
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1867292
B
Bishopite
Guest
Yes, I have Youngs concordance and when it describes words it, many times uses a number of descriptions of what the word means or could mean but gives many possiblities. That you just look up the Greek and pooof there it is, isn’t factual!!! That’s over simplistic and WAY BAD theology. But that’s the offspiring I’m afaid, of sola Scriptura.
- Status