S
sandusky
Guest
Another one hit out of the park! [SIGN]
[/SIGN]
- Status
[/SIGN]
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Pssssssssst. [SIGN]Foul Balls don’t get anyone on base…Another one hit out of the park! [SIGN]
[/SIGN]James
S
sandusky
Guest
Tradition’s on my side with this one James—"hit out of the park" doesn’t mean foul.Pssssssssst. [SIGN]Foul Balls don’t get anyone on base…
James
G
guanophore
Guest
It is not “Protestant”, although I agree with you about the bandering about.
2 Tim 3:15-17
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.
I do think that most of the epistles went “straight to the written word”, and were inspired the moment they were written. This was recognized by the Church at the time, and formalized when the canon was formed.
However, this teaching was orally preached before it was penned,and the oral preaching was inspired-inerrant in order to be reflected as such in scripture.
This is the rendering of the Gk., Theopneustos.
Yes, this is something often overlooked by Sola Scripturists. The only other time that God breathed upon man in this way was at the creation.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Sounds like you are starting to equivocate and coming over to our side to me.Tradition’s on my side with this one James—"hit out of the park doesn’t mean foul."
James
L
LilyM
Guest
Umm, no. Look at the following letter from Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp of Smyrna:
"IGNATIUS to Polycarp
CHAPTER 0
0:0 Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp
who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans or
rather who hath for his bishop God the Father and
Jesus Christ, (here he’s claiming direct God-given authority!)abundant greeting.
CHAPTER 1
1:1 Welcoming thy godly mind which is grounded as it
were on an immovable rock, (here he claims to base his teaching directly on that of the Apostles - the rock is a reference to Peter, no?) I give exceeding glory that
it hath been vouchsafed me to see thy blameless face,
whereof I would fain have joy in God.
1:2 I exhort thee in the grace wherewith thou art
clothed to press forward in thy course and to exhort
all men that they may be saved. - (here he’s saying Polycarp’s teachings are clothed in God’s grace and that his own exhortations, independently of anything else, will spur men on to their salvation).
So we have references to God’s grace and inspiration, and God-given authority, and to Apostolic teaching - not a single reference to scripture as a source of authority or the necessity of a scriptural basis for salvation! Not a single mention of scripture in the whole letter - which you can see earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html, and yet you dare to say it wasn’t authoritative?
S
sandusky
Guest
Sorry Lily, but your interpretations of those writings are just that—your interpretations.
Only the writings of Scripture are designated theopneustos, and I’m certain Lightfoot
would agree.
S
sandusky
Guest
Sounds to me as though you impose your presuppositions onto everything you read.Sounds like you are starting to equivocate and coming over to our side to me.
James
A
Anuarite
Guest
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you.
St. Paul commanded the Thessalonians in 2 Thes 2:14 to keep the traditions that they had been taught either orally or in writing.
…… Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word,
or by epistle ….
From this alone; any logical thinking will lead us to understand that Paul; while writing this letter is proclaiming that the brethren have a duty to hold fast to both forms of revelation written and oral aka “Tradition”. And as every obeying Christian should do, the “brethren have done just that. Obeying Paul’s command, they kept both oral (Tradition) and epistles; and passed them down the line of succession from generation to generation . It has been this way for 1,500 years until Luther came along with his own religion a “ limited version of Christianity” keeping only the ½ written and rejecting the ½ **oral **( Tradition). So following in Luther’s step Emeraldisle decided by his own authority to disobey Paul command and to hold fast only to the written part of the tradition.
Well! This is a free world if one wants to limit themselves in their understanding of God’s revelation, by all means let them be.
But for us Catholics in obedience to Jesus and the apostles we have Received, Accepted and Held fast to both forms of God’s revelation Oral aka (Tradition) and written aka (Bible), simply put we do not limit God’s revelation to ½ but we possess the fullness of the faith
The protestant dilemma is to come up with a citation from Scripture where an Apostle changes this command and limit our acceptance to written tradition only. Of course, if an Apostle had given this command, it would have disqualified his very own preaching at that very moment!
Emeraldisle has posted the same words over and over and over again. Anything that do not support his claims is “non essential” to him; anything that he cannot explain is “out of context” according to him; anything that should make him pose and connect the dots is “not addressing the subject”
With excuses like these, 200 more pages can be written to no avail. 55 pages of explanations are not enough to even make him stop and think.
His interpretation of the “word of God” is INFAILLIBLE because he knows for sure that he posses all the keys to understanding scripture as God intended us to understand it. At least, that what I get from his postings
I also wonder why our separated brethren do not spent this much time in Islamic forums. Wouldn’t it be great to evangelize those who do not even know Jesus as the son of God True God from True God?
Here is one forum that could benefit from Emeraldisle veneration of the word of God. We catholic do believe that the Bible is the word of God; but our Muslim friends have issue with this.
So I challenge emeraldisle and the brethren to get on this forum and put in to action what the “Written word of God” says
in Matthew 10:7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near’
And this one Mark 16:15 Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all creation Our Lord speaks without any limitation or restriction;
The world is not limited to Catholics you know!
Here is a good forum of interest for those not interested in learning about the catholic faith but rather in the quest of converting people to their faith
turntoislam.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=66
This is my first and last comment on this thread. I Pray for Jesus and his Holy Spirit to guide our separated brethren in wisdom and openness in their quest for truth.
And I praise God for all the “Tiber swimmers” your testimony and Zeal have revive this cradle catholic who once took our faith for granted.
Thank you so much for your dedication to the propagation of the gospel in the fullness of the faith. God is doing Miracles with all these conversions!
God Bless you all
St. Paul commanded the Thessalonians in 2 Thes 2:14 to keep the traditions that they had been taught either orally or in writing.
…… Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word,
or by epistle ….From this alone; any logical thinking will lead us to understand that Paul; while writing this letter is proclaiming that the brethren have a duty to hold fast to both forms of revelation written and oral aka “Tradition”. And as every obeying Christian should do, the “brethren have done just that. Obeying Paul’s command, they kept both oral (Tradition) and epistles; and passed them down the line of succession from generation to generation . It has been this way for 1,500 years until Luther came along with his own religion a “ limited version of Christianity” keeping only the ½ written and rejecting the ½ **oral **( Tradition). So following in Luther’s step Emeraldisle decided by his own authority to disobey Paul command and to hold fast only to the written part of the tradition.
Well! This is a free world if one wants to limit themselves in their understanding of God’s revelation, by all means let them be.
But for us Catholics in obedience to Jesus and the apostles we have Received, Accepted and Held fast to both forms of God’s revelation Oral aka (Tradition) and written aka (Bible), simply put we do not limit God’s revelation to ½ but we possess the fullness of the faith
The protestant dilemma is to come up with a citation from Scripture where an Apostle changes this command and limit our acceptance to written tradition only. Of course, if an Apostle had given this command, it would have disqualified his very own preaching at that very moment!
Emeraldisle has posted the same words over and over and over again. Anything that do not support his claims is “non essential” to him; anything that he cannot explain is “out of context” according to him; anything that should make him pose and connect the dots is “not addressing the subject”
With excuses like these, 200 more pages can be written to no avail. 55 pages of explanations are not enough to even make him stop and think.
His interpretation of the “word of God” is INFAILLIBLE because he knows for sure that he posses all the keys to understanding scripture as God intended us to understand it. At least, that what I get from his postings
I also wonder why our separated brethren do not spent this much time in Islamic forums. Wouldn’t it be great to evangelize those who do not even know Jesus as the son of God True God from True God?
Here is one forum that could benefit from Emeraldisle veneration of the word of God. We catholic do believe that the Bible is the word of God; but our Muslim friends have issue with this.
So I challenge emeraldisle and the brethren to get on this forum and put in to action what the “Written word of God” says
in Matthew 10:7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near’
And this one Mark 16:15 Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all creation Our Lord speaks without any limitation or restriction;
The world is not limited to Catholics you know!
Here is a good forum of interest for those not interested in learning about the catholic faith but rather in the quest of converting people to their faith
turntoislam.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=66
This is my first and last comment on this thread. I Pray for Jesus and his Holy Spirit to guide our separated brethren in wisdom and openness in their quest for truth.
And I praise God for all the “Tiber swimmers” your testimony and Zeal have revive this cradle catholic who once took our faith for granted.
Thank you so much for your dedication to the propagation of the gospel in the fullness of the faith. God is doing Miracles with all these conversions!
God Bless you all
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
And Jesus never said he was God. IE “I am God”
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Oh yes it does. It is only the presupposed idea that when some one says “hit out of the park” that it means over the stands and still inside the base line (beyond the base). A foul ball that ends up outside the park is "hit out of the park" .Tradition’s on my side with this one James—"hit out of the park" doesn’t mean foul.
It is your presuppostion that it means a home run, when in reality of realism it means any ball that finds itself outside the park.
M
mercygate
Guest
To say that the Christology of the Councils was BASED in Scripture because Scripture supports those doctrines is stretching the point. The doctrines were believed because they were true, and because the tradition of the Church had taught them before they were dogmatically defined in Council.
As stated earlier, these dogmatic assertions do NOT contradict Scripture. They arise out of the Christological formulations of the Councils and all of them stand in relation to the teachings on the Person of Jesus Christ and the integrity of the hypostatic union. “Dogma” is officially defined as something that may not be explicitly stated in Scripture but that derives inevitably from the logical extension of the Deposit of Faith.
Pretty good here. But they are not “extra” biblical. And those types of the Virgin ARE types of the Virgin.
There is no “in spite of”. The early Reformers all held to the Marian dogmas. These teachings did not disappear from Protestantism until the 18th Century. Abuses of Marian devotion undoubtedly played a huge part in the rejection of these dogmas, since many simple people had elevated Our Lady in their own minds to almost divine status. True devotion to Our Lady never does this.
None of the Marian dogmas, properly understood, in any way violates Scripture. Once you are able to say that Scripture is a part of Tradition, you must come to terms with the concept of doctrinal development – perhaps best elucidated by Newman in his landmark Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
We do not “fail.” And we do not “waste” time and energy. The question is framed in a certain way, and Catholics try to respond within the framework of the question, even if the framework is faulty.
This is a highly limited, not to say detractive, view of the power of the Holy Spirit.
M
mercygate
Guest
Emerald, how do you account for the fact that the big names among the early reformers all believed that Mary was sinless?
M
mercygate
Guest
The case for Mary’s sinlessnes is not exclusively biblical. You have imposed this condition on the discussion, and it is not a condition that is reasonable in light of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the Trinitarian Godhead or the Hypostatic Union.
Again: how is it that the Protestant ‘reformers’ retained their belief in Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception, her perpetual sinlessness, and her perpetual virginity?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Well, we are in a conundrum here with the sola scripturaists are we not? Every time we Catholics point to lessons from tradition or barrow from history & archeology (the only other references available from which to teach from) we get the same complaint - “but the bible does not teach that”. But when we tell them that traditional Catholic teaching and The Church’s early manuscripts are where we get the Bible from and remind them that Jesus never wrote anything but in the dust they say- “my bible does not tell me all that either”. So then we remind them that The Catholic Church assembled the bible and has the authority to teach it they say - “my bible does not tell me that”. And when we tell them “the Bible does not give the commandment to write the bible nor instructions that anyone should take it as the only word of God they say – “that’s ridiculous, everyone knows it’s the Bible and what it says”. But when we tell them that the bible instructs them to “listen to The Church teachings and traditions” rather than listen with their ears and take instruction they try to teach the Teacher and say - “it says that but that’s not what God meant.” Then when we ask them why they follow the Catholic tradition of going to Church on Sunday rather than the Sabbath like their bible tells them to all we get is silence.James, NCs have been asking you many of the questions that you’ve listed from Scripture in your post #812, and all you can answer is, ”because my church’s tradition tells me so!”
Traditionally, this is when we are instructed to shake their dust from our sandals and part company. But when we start off to walk away they say – “why do you walk away from God’s word”? And all we can say is “remember man that thou are dust and unto dust thou shall return”. And as we walk away the wind blows the dust we shook from our feet into the eyes of those we left behind and we hear faint voices dieing on the wind - “hey come back - just where does it say that in the bible and why are you turning your back on God?"
This I can fix. That ringing sound is not tinnitus at all. Try the tinfoil hat the next time you suppose you can read my mind.Sounds to me as though you impose your presuppositions onto everything you read.
If it persists its really Church bells and you are almost late for Sunday church services.
James
S
sandusky
Guest
Nothing Paul says suggests that the tradition the Thessalonians received from him is infallibly preserved anywhere except in scripture.May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you.
St. Paul commanded the Thessalonians in 2 Thes 2:14 to keep the traditions that they had been taught either orally or in writing.
…… Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word,
From this alone; any logical thinking will lead us to understand that Paul; while writing this letter is proclaiming that the brethren have a duty to hold fast to both forms of revelation written and oral aka “Tradition”. And as every obeying Christian should do, the “brethren have done just that. Obeying Paul’s command, they kept both oral (Tradition) and epistles; and passed them down the line of succession from generation to generation . It has been this way for 1,500 years until Luther came along with his own religion a “ limited version of Christianity” keeping only the ½ written and rejecting the ½ **oral **( Tradition). So following in Luther’s step Emeraldisle decided by his own authority to disobey Paul command and to hold fast only to the written part of the tradition.
Well! This is a free world if one wants to limit themselves in their understanding of God’s revelation, by all means let them be.
But for us Catholics in obedience to Jesus and the apostles we have Received, Accepted and Held fast to both forms of God’s revelation Oral aka (Tradition) and written aka (Bible), simply put we do not limit God’s revelation to ½ but we possess the fullness of the faith
The protestant dilemma is to come up with a citation from Scripture where an Apostle changes this command and limit our acceptance to written tradition only. Of course, if an Apostle had given this command, it would have disqualified his very own preaching at that very moment!
Emeraldisle has posted the same words over and over and over again. Anything that do not support his claims is “non essential” to him; anything that he cannot explain is “out of context” according to him; anything that should make him pose and connect the dots is “not addressing the subject”
With excuses like these, 200 more pages can be written to no avail. 55 pages of explanations are not enough to even make him stop and think.
His interpretation of the “word of God” is INFAILLIBLE because he knows for sure that he posses all the keys to understanding scripture as God intended us to understand it. At least, that what I get from his postings
I also wonder why our separated brethren do not spent this much time in Islamic forums. Wouldn’t it be great to evangelize those who do not even know Jesus as the son of God True God from True God?
Here is one forum that could benefit from Emeraldisle veneration of the word of God. We catholic do believe that the Bible is the word of God; but our Muslim friends have issue with this.
So I challenge emeraldisle and the brethren to get on this forum and put in to action what the “Written word of God” says
in Matthew 10:7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near’
And this one Mark 16:15 Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all creation Our Lord speaks without any limitation or restriction;
The world is not limited to Catholics you know!
Here is a good forum of interest for those not interested in learning about the catholic faith but rather in the quest of converting people to their faith
turntoislam.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=66
This is my first and last comment on this thread. I Pray for Jesus and his Holy Spirit to guide our separated brethren in wisdom and openness in their quest for truth.
And I praise God for all the “Tiber swimmers” your testimony and Zeal have revive this cradle catholic who once took our faith for granted.
Thank you so much for your dedication to the propagation of the gospel in the fullness of the faith. God is doing Miracles with all these conversions!
God Bless you all
The point of Paul’s remarks are antithetical to your tradition, IMO. Paul does not encourage the Thessalonians to receive any tradition by second or third hand reports, or those confabulated out of whole cloth in the distant future, but, to receive only as infallible truth that which they heard in his presence, and from his own lips.
IMO, you’re not doing what Paul instructed.
S
sandusky
Guest
S
sandusky
Guest
S
sandusky
Guest
They were Catholic. :whacky:
S
sandusky
Guest
They were Catholic, and, obviously, they were concerned with more important things such as the abuses of the papacy, so on, so forth.
- Status