You can't have it both ways.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My point is that Catholics and many other groups adhere to Scripture and Tradition and disagree.
That is a fact.
Cannot be argued.
My point is also that Christians adhere to Scripture alone and disagree.
Both are facts.
Cannot be argued.
Can we agree on that?
I am not derailing, I am examining your basic presupposition by which the question was asked.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Nice. If I truly believed the Bible…If I truly believed God…
How does someone answer that?
Just curious.
Click to expand...
If you truly believed God, you would understand that Jesus established a Kingdom. The Davidic Kingdom points to the Catholic Church:

King anointed in a river by a prophet and priest.
Mother of the King venerated as Queen.
King appoints ruling council of twelve.
King appoints chief steward who holds keys of the Kingdom.

This is clearly the Catholic Church, and not some man-made chaotic mess.
 
StTommyMore said:
If you truly believed God, you would understand that Jesus established a Kingdom. The Davidic Kingdom points to the Catholic Church:

King anointed in a river by a prophet and priest.
Mother of the King venerated as Queen.
King appoints ruling council of twelve.
King appoints chief steward who holds keys of the Kingdom.

This is clearly the Catholic Church, and not some man-made chaotic mess.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you do not truly believe God? How DOES that feel? Just curious.
 
Rightlydivide said:
And lets not forget the earlier schism.
But so they have different Traditions? How did you decide which one was correct? I am sure you also examined the Oriental Orthodox and the other churches that trace their bishops to the Apostles? You had to examine all of them to decide which traditons were correct?
Just checking.
Click to expand...
Well, you are right, and I came to the conclusion, as a former protestant, that the CC is the historical church of Matthew 16:18, John 14:16, Acts 1:8, Matthew 28:20 and John 16:13. Once I established that fact, sacred scripture helped me realize that all truth is revealed through Jesus’ established church, be it by word or letter. Doctrinal truth is safeguarded by the Holy spirit in Jesus’ established church, therefore the CC is correct only because the HS is guiding the CC into all truth as opposed to partial truth.

I ask again, regarding SS:

Some churches claim that Jesus was speaking in metaphor in John 6 and some churches (Lutheran) - claim that Jesus was speaking literally (my flesh is real food…) - and they both defer to the bible, as their final authority, for their doctrinal clarification. Using SS as the Christians final authority, let’s you and I figure out who is right and who is wrong, however, one of these church leaders will always disagree our final decision and that’s why an outside authority is essential. The question is: who or what qualifies as said authority to correctly interpret sacred scripture, and the answer to that question, you will have to discover yourself.
 
joe370 said:
Well, you are right, and I came to the conclusion, as a former protestant, that the CC is the historical church of Matthew 16:18, John 14:16, Acts 1:8, Matthew 28:20 and John 16:13. Once I established that fact, sacred scripture helped me realize that all truth is revealed through Jesus’ established church, be it by word or letter. Doctrinal truth is safeguarded by the Holy spirit in Jesus’ established church, therefore the CC is correct only because the HS is guiding the CC into all truth as opposed to partial truth.

I ask again, regarding SS:

Some churches claim that Jesus was speaking in metaphor in John 6 and some churches (Lutheran) - claim that Jesus was speaking literally (my flesh is real food…) - and they both defer to the bible, as their final authority, for their doctrinal clarification. Using SS as the Christians final authority, let’s you and I figure out who is right and who is wrong, however, one of these church leaders will always disagree our final decision and that’s why an outside authority is essential. The question is: who or what qualifies as said authority to correctly interpret sacred scripture, and the answer to that question, you will have to discover yourself.
Click to expand...
You came to that conclusion
and millions of other Orthodox did not.
And hundreds of other groups that adhere to Tradition as well.
So your personal interpretation of the facts is superior to theirs? How does one personally evaluate tradition to decide which group is correct? Is it like evaluating which Sola Scriptura group is right? Do you use the same books of history and tradition to decide?

Oh Joe, you can always find an authority. Don’t you think?
 
Rightlydivide said:
I see. Enjoy that feeling then.
Take care.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that Jesus was not anointed by a Prophet and priest in a river as King Solomon was? The Scriptures say otherwise.

Are you saying that the Queen-mother of the Davidic kingdom has no role? The scriptures say otherwise.

Are you saying that Jesus did not establish a Kingdom? The Scriptures say otherwise.
 
Rightlydivide , you said to Tommy:
Do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you do not truly believe God? How DOES that feel? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Rightly, why so defensive? :confused: We are just sharing with you our catholic faith. Why would you ask him that question in light of the fact that Tommy and myself, defer to the teachings of the CC founded by Jesus? Even if “everyone” disagrees with the CC that doesn’t mean that “everyone” does not truly believe God; they simply believe what they are being taught by one of the many churches in the world today, or their own interpretation of their bible, given to them by the CC.
 
Sometimes, really, I almost leave this forum, but then I realize it’s better to hit the “unsubscribe” button and take a few deep breadths.
 
StTommyMore said:
So are you saying that Jesus was not anointed by a Prophet and priest in a river as King Solomon was? The Scriptures say otherwise.

Are you saying that the Queen-mother of the Davidic kingdom has no role? The scriptures say otherwise.

Are you saying that Jesus did not establish a Kingdom? The Scriptures say otherwise.
Click to expand...
I am saying that Jesus absolutely was not anointed by a Prophet and a priest in a river.
I am saying the word aleiphō means anointed. You seem to believe for some reason I suppose it was John. But the Bible never teaches that.
Who anoints Jesus? The sinful woman in Luke 7. So right off the bat you say I disagree with scripture and do not believe God but state something not found in scripture.
But you did not accurately describe what the Bible teaches about the anointing of Jesus.
Did you?
 
joe370 said:
Rightlydivide , you said to Tommy:

Rightly, why so defensive? :confused: We are just sharing with you our catholic faith. Why would you ask him that question in light of the fact that Tommy and myself, defer to the teachings of the CC founded by Jesus? Even if “everyone” disagrees with the CC that doesn’t mean that “everyone” does not truly believe God; they simply believe what they are being taught by one of the many churches in the world today, or their own interpretation of their bible, given to them by the CC.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the thread is to question the legitimate nature of my beliefs and other Christians like me. Isn’t it?
 
Rightlydivide said:
I am saying that Jesus absolutely was not anointed by a Prophet and a priest in a river.
I am saying the word aleiphō means anointed. You seem to believe for some reason I suppose it was John. But the Bible never teaches that.
Who anoints Jesus? The sinful woman in Luke 7. So right off the bat you say I disagree with scripture and do not believe God but state something not found in scripture.
But you did not accurately describe what the Bible teaches about the anointing of Jesus.
Did you?
Click to expand...
The Baptism of Jesus was his anointing as king. King SOlomon was taken to a river (the Gihon) and anointed in the presence of Nathan the Prophet and Zadok the Priest. Jesus went to a river (Jordan) and was anointed King by a Prophet of priestly lineage (John the Baptist). Immediately following his anointing as King, Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. It is very clear. This is basic exegesis. You must look at Scriptures in the context of the whole canon. You can’t just choose to ignore parts that are inconvenient for your man-made belief system.
 
StTommyMore said:
The Baptism of Jesus was his anointing as king. King SOlomon was taken to a river (the Gihon) and anointed in the presence of Nathan the Prophet and Zadok the Priest. Jesus went to a river (Jordan) and was anointed King by a Prophet of priestly lineage (John the Baptist). Immediately following his anointing as King, Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. It is very clear. This is basic exegesis. You must look at Scriptures in the context of the whole canon. You can’t just choose to ignore parts that are inconvenient for your man-made belief system.
Click to expand...
No it was not. The Bible never uses the word anointing in relation to the baptism by John. Its not there. It does not exist.
I am not ignoring something because it does not exist.
 
Rightlydivide said:
No it was not. The Bible never uses the word anointing in relation to the baptism by John. Its not there. It does not exist.
I am not ignoring something because it does not exist.
Click to expand...
Then am i to assume that you are not Trinitarian? That word is never used to describe the Nature of God.
 
StTommyMore said:
Then am i to assume that you are not Trinitarian? That word is never used to describe the Nature of God.
Click to expand...
Nice try. LOL

Does the Bible use the word anoint in relation to the baptism by John? Yes or no.
The answer is no.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Nice try. LOL

Does the Bible use the word anoint in relation to the baptism by John? Yes or no.
The answer is no.
Click to expand...
Whether the actual word is used or not is irrelevant. You must look at the deeper reality of what is occurring. Jesus is establishing himself as the Davidic King. Kings must be anointed.
 
Joe
I believe that Jesus teaches us how to find Truth. It is by their fruits.
If in reading the history of the Catholic Church, you are comfortable that they have showed the fruits of the spirit, I respect that.
I can say my church has never persecuted or hurt anyone who disagreed with our theology. That matters a lot to me. In fact, I believe it is absolutely essential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top