Posted on 06/22/2009 7:28:34 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
of course not, because catholics have always believed in the inspired inerrant word of God, in fact, the very Church you are in a friendly manner making light of, put the Bible together divine guidance. (stated the canon about 325 or so, was it)And for about 1500 years all accepted the fact the Church alone had the power to authoritatively interpret Scripture, because the Bible was her book.
Some malcontents far removed from the orginal facts of history self-proclaimed their own infallible or quasi-infallibe interpretations and now we have the sad divsions and its logical aftermath: a society whose majority is “Christian” but who have very serious moral differences and who can now be exploited by unbelievers on account of the differences
the Bible is not argued about because we all agree that it is inspired, effective for teaching and reproof, etc.
Want a biblical argument: how many books are there 66? 72?
68 (didn’t the infallible St. Martin Luther want to ditch Revelation and other 3 other books, inclding the letter of St. James?) the fur will fly on that one
There's a very long line of learned and holy men since the group you mention who disagree with your heroes...
God did not write the scriptures so that learned men could understand them and translate to us what He had in mind...
The scriptures were written so the the average 14 year old can read them...
The only hard part about the scriptures is BELIEVING what they say, as you guys can surely attest to...
Would you so easily dismiss the accumulated wisdom of centuries on scientific or historical issues?
You mean like the creation story in Genesis??? I immediately dismiss your religion's unbelief in the creation story and your religion's connection with Darwin...I believe what God said...And no doubt, so did many of your 'early' church fathers...
When you guys claim that God didn't mean what he says or you add and take away words from a scripture to prove what you say is true, I throw that out with the dirty bathwater...
Your ignorance of Scripture is frightening.
Did not Jesus take Peter, James and John with him up Tabor and converse with Moses and Elijah? The three Apostles saw both Moses and Elijah for Peter said to Jesus, "Let us make three tents......" Or was that "Tarot card" stuff as well?
You said these saints confirmed that Mary never had more children...Then you use Moses and Elijah to confirm this??? Really, what saints told you guys that Mary had no other children???
How can the sinful give rise to the sinless? How can sinful flesh give rise to sinless flesh? That's your belief, right? Out of sinful human flesh came the Sinless One.
Of course...Jesus endured temptation...You think you can tempt God??? God has told you otherwise...
Jesus did not just have the appearance of a human...Jesus became human...
There are many incidents in the OT where the Angel of the Lord, which is Jesus, took on the appearance of a man...In that case, what you claim about Jesus is accurate...But when Jesus actually became flesh and blood, he got all the things that come with it...
Yes, Irenaeus is talking about the Church of Rome. Yet within the context of 1st & 2nd century Christianity, one cannot understand “the Church of Rome” without the overseer/episcopos at its head. “Do nothing without the bishop”...”do not assemble in unauthorized meetings”...”do not reject those place in authority above you” these are common refrains in Ignatius, in Clement, and in Irenaeus. Metropolitan John Zizioulas has done great work on this from the Orthodox side...arguing that synodality does not exist without primacy and vice versa. If such a thing was granted to the Church of Rome, it must have been granted to its head as well.
Now, was it granted to the Church of Rome in the first place? Scripture, you say, doesn’t claim it. And you’d be right, the way you formulated it—Rome the city got no special privilege in the NT (in fact quite the opposite in Revelation). That’s why we hold the Petrine connection so important. Rome is important only insofar as it was the premier Apostolic See. And I’m hinging this not only on a particular exegesis of Matt 16 but on the historical fact of Peter’s life, leadership, and martyrdom there. That’s after all, what the Fathers thought so important—as Irenaeus points out.
Second, I think the the possibility of apostasy and heresy existing for *every* Christian body, even majority ones, destroys any possibility of creedal definition and defining heterodoxy at all. If Rome was wrong at Trent, then why not wrong at Chalcedon or Nicaea? Why Athanasius, and not Arius? Why Luther and not Joseph Smith? There is no court of last resort. There is no objective yardstick.
Third, you say if the church is unblemished...then we submit to her authority. That carries with it a huge assumption—namely, that you and I are capable of distinguishing the blemishes. The Real Presence to you may well look like a ecclesiastical blemish...to me its absence looks like a gaping wound. Why is Alex’s discernment right on this and Claud’s wrong? We can dismiss and anathematize each other, we can pound the tables with competing exegeses. And who is right? Who is wrong? Who is the devoted follower of Our Lord supposed to believe?
I think the answer lies in what was believed always, everywhere, and by all—with an ecclesiastical entity that is empowered to know the difference. For all time. Because an infallibility that changes its locus every few centuries, is, I’d argue, no infallibility at all and no satisfactory provision of a loving God to his followers.
Ah, but "brothers and sisters" still doesn't necessarily mean Mary had other children. There is an old, old tradition dating to the second century that Joseph was an old man who had children prior to his marriage to Mary:
And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee.The brothers and sisters could well have been half-brothers and half-sisters. That's why most of the Reformers still defended this doctrine.
Evidently my point was missed.
Wasn’t talking about arguing about Scripture.
Was talking about the obvious, overt, persistent etc.
lack of emotional attachment to it as demonstrated for many years hereon by the
Roman Catholic contingent
COMPARED TO
the HYPER EMOTIONALITY at the drop of a thread from a white hanky regarding Mary et al.
Not facing that issue honestly and candidly will not likely trigger much bother from me as this thread goes on.
INDEED.
Plain language.
Usage plentiful from the era.
Contextual confirmation etc. etc. etc.
Politics and bureaucracy seem to me to be part of what Christ hated about religion 2,000 years ago, too.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
***No. I just need a bit of reason and education to recognize Elim for what it is.***
http://www.it-is-easy.org/contact/friends/blue.php gives the story of Apostles Patricia Blue.
Patricia Blue is the founder and executive director of Abundant Lifestyle Ministries (ALM), a Spirit-led Christian organisation, affiliated with many ministries around the world.
...
She is an ordained minister with Elim Fellowship of Lima, New York. Patricia has traveled in over 55 nations of the world, planting churches, impacting leadership, bringing the Gospel in campaigns, revivals, evangelistic outreaches, seminars and conferences. She has been on television many times . In Siberia her teaching was broadcast to a viewing audience of over 25 million people. She has also appeared on “The God Channel” in the UK., and on the National St. Petersberg, Russia network.
...
Patricia is an anointed, prophetic speaker, flowing freely in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Lives are changed and impacted by the powerful, simple Word, spoken with the direct truth that she brings. Her background is one of pain, drug addiction, alcoholism, sexual abuse, rape, and criminal activities. She finds many avenues to speak to the hearts of hurting people in every nation.
How much of her background is in Elim, I wonder.
Which is no doubt why there is such widespread division and lack of unity on what critical passages in Scripture actually mean amongst those who espouse the "personal interpretation" of Scripture viewpoint. I guess they're just too easy to understand. Or maybe it's because we're not 14?
FWIW, you may be interested to know that Scripture itself disagrees with you. Read 2Peter. Speaking of the letters of St. Paul, St. Peter apparently didn't get your memo. For he states;
And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Peter3:15-16
So according to St. Peter, there are certain things in Paul's letters which are hard to understand. Where does your assertion about "14 year olds" find its Scriptural basis?
The only hard part about the scriptures is BELIEVING what they say, as you guys can surely attest to...
You're funny.
Why have thousands of Scripture scholars toiled through the centuries up until this very day in order to deepen our understanding of Scripture? What fools! What a waste of time! It's all so easy. Just ask your average 14 year old.
You mean like the creation story in Genesis??? I immediately dismiss your religion's unbelief in the creation story and your religion's connection with Darwin...I believe what God said...And no doubt, so did many of your 'early' church fathers... When you guys claim that God didn't mean what he says or you add and take away words from a scripture to prove what you say is true, I throw that out with the dirty bathwater...
No, that's not what I'm referring to. You blithely dismiss the opinions of doctors of the Church and the accumulated wisdom of scholars down through the centuries.
My question asked whether you were equally quick to dismiss the accumulated wisdom in other areas of the human endeavor, such as science or philosophy for instance. Have you come to accept Newton's Laws yet, or are they baloney, too?
You said these saints confirmed that Mary never had more children...Then you use Moses and Elijah to confirm this???
Please. Don't be deliberately dense.
I stated that one of the pieces of evidence that Mary never had more children was the writings of mystics and saints.
You scoffed about talking with the dead and made references to crystal balls and tarot cards. I replied that the scriptural example of Jesus and the three apostles conversing with Moses and Elijah indicated that there was nothing novel about the living conversing with holy men who had departed this life.
I shouldn't have to say this but the encounter of Jesus, Peter, James and John with Moses and Elijah is not evidence that Mary had no more children but that mystical experiences with saints and holy men is not without precedent in Scripture.
Really, what saints told you guys that Mary had no other children???
There's a list of some of the more well known mystics right here. It's by no means extensive but many of those listed have written on the Blessed Virgin.
Of course...Jesus endured temptation...You think you can tempt God??? God has told you otherwise...
Jesus was tempted in the desert by Satan. Temptation is not synonymous with sin. What does that have to do with sinful flesh giving rise to sinless flesh?
There are many incidents in the OT where the Angel of the Lord, which is Jesus, took on the appearance of a man...In that case, what you claim about Jesus is accurate...But when Jesus actually became flesh and blood, he got all the things that come with it...
Including sinfulness?
BTW, a couple of "minor" points. Jesus is the incarnate son of God born of Mary. The OT predates that.
Also, an angel of the Lord is not Jesus. An angel is an angel. Don't confuse the two.
Your life story would be a great read.
I didn't say AN Angel of the Lord...I said THE Angel of the Lord...And yes, a 14 year old kid knows the difference between an and the...How did your church fathers/scholars/mystics miss it??
You scoffed about talking with the dead and made references to crystal balls and tarot cards. I replied that the scriptural example of Jesus and the three apostles conversing with Moses and Elijah indicated that there was nothing novel about the living conversing with holy men who had departed this life.
Not novel??? May not be very novel in you religion but it's very novel in the word of God...
Weird...You apparently are trying to correct me with scripture but the second time now you have to 'change' the scripture to get it to mean what you want it to mean...
John and Peter and James did NOT converse with Moses and Elias...No one but the 'glorified' Jesus conversed with the Prophets...There goes your wild theory...
FWIW, you may be interested to know that Scripture itself disagrees with you. Read 2Peter. Speaking of the letters of St. Paul, St. Peter apparently didn't get your memo. For he states;
And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 2Peter3:15-16
So according to St. Peter, there are certain things in Paul's letters which are hard to understand. Where does your assertion about "14 year olds" find its Scriptural basis?
What makes you think he's talking to me, and not you...So you apparently take that to mean that the scriptures are difficult and hard to understand so a person must be an intellectual, highly educated scholar to understand the 8th grade language, eh???
Well, I got news for ya...Bad news...The verse doesn't say the scripture is so difficult it's hard for the younger and less educated to understand...It says there are 'certain things' which are hard, not impossible to understand and since you guys always jump to that verse to prove something that isn't true, I'd say it applies to your crew...
There's a list of some of the more well known mystics right here. It's by no means extensive but many of those listed have written on the Blessed Virgin.
I didn't see Joseph Smith's name in there...He's every bit a mystic that your guys are...Lotsa mystics out there...One famous one was Edgar Cayce...Is he on the list???
In the scriptures, your mystics are called prophets, or Doctors of Devination...
Deu 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deu 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
You can keep 'em...I don't want anything to do with them...
how can you deny that Mary was the mother of Augustus Caesar too? Come on, the cultists are able to interpret the Bible (or at least the abridged version they got from earlier interpreters like luther etc) and they can make up anything they want.
you have the Bible according to Luther, but do you have the Bible according to Quix?
The funny thing is that they are anti-”what they THINK The Church is all about”
LOL......"The Angel of the Lord" = Jesus??
Jesus is not an angel, He is not "the" angel of the Lord. He is not any type of angel. Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin.
Aside from theological confusion about the distinction between angels and Jesus the God-man, there is also chronological confusion. The OT predates Jesus.
Where do you get the idea that "The Angel of the Lord" is Jesus? Not novel??? May not be very novel in you religion but it's very novel in the word of God...Weird...You apparently are trying to correct me with scripture but the second time now you have to 'change' the scripture to get it to mean what you want it to mean... John and Peter and James did NOT converse with Moses and Elias...No one but the 'glorified' Jesus conversed with the Prophets...There goes your wild theory...
You wish.
Peter, James and John were present for the conversation with Moses and Elijah and witnessed it and irrespective of whether they conversed with the aforementioned two they were a part of the mystical experience for Peter said..."let us build three tents....".
Perhaps you think that is the only reference in the NT to the apostles having mystical experiences. Allow me to give you a few more. When Peter was in prison an angel appeared to him and led him out of prison. Paul speaks of encounters with the devil when he refers to "an angel of Satan to beat me" to keep him humble after he had undergone sublime mystical experiences. Finally, the entire last book of the Bible is a narrative of a mystical vision which John received on the island of Patmos.
Such visions didn't stop with John or the other apostles. Mysticism has been alive in the Church throughout her history to this very day.
What makes you think he's talking to me, and not you...So you apparently take that to mean that the scriptures are difficult and hard to understand so a person must be an intellectual, highly educated scholar to understand the 8th grade language, eh??? Well, I got news for ya...Bad news...The verse doesn't say the scripture is so difficult it's hard for the younger and less educated to understand...It says there are 'certain things' which are hard, not impossible to understand and since you guys always jump to that verse to prove something that isn't true, I'd say it applies to your crew...
So to summarize, Peter's caution about interpreting certain passages in Paul's letters was not addressed to you. It was addressed to my "crew" (i.e. the Catholic Church)?
You know that's just plain silly, right? It's a total stretch. A flimsy and tortured attempt to explain away Peter's admonition. When you shot off your mouth about "a 14 year old can understand it", you completely forgot about that passage in Peter. BTW, you still haven't explained the Scriptural basis for your "14 year old" idea.
We want to keep this Scriptural, right? We wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that you're just pulling this stuff out of the air, would we?
I didn't see Joseph Smith's name in there...He's every bit a mystic that your guys are...Lotsa mystics out there...One famous one was Edgar Cayce...Is he on the list??? In the scriptures, your mystics are called prophets, or Doctors of Devination...
Scripture actually tells us to "test the Spirit". That's the Church's job. That's why the Book of Revelation is in the Bible. The Fathers of the early Church decided that John's writings concerning what he saw in the cave on Patmos were truly mystical and authentically of God, rather than Satanic or the result of a bad hangover.
Over the centuries there have been false mystics who were either fakes or who were relaying messages from Satan. Then there have been true mystics who were, like John, receiving visions which conveyed authentic truth. Another reason why we need the Church to guard us against the wiles of Satan.
Naturally, if you dismiss the Church then you're left on your own to sort the wheat from the chaff. The result is that you, unable to discern true mysticism from false, dismiss all of it.
Have you figured out the difference between temptation and sin yet? I'm still waiting for you to explain how what is sinful can give rise to what is sinless.
Perhaps someone can explain to me what Fr. McBrien from the Univ. of Notre Apostasy is de-bunking here. That the Popes are not God-Kings? Is that really news to anyone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.