Posted on 06/19/2013 1:00:37 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
Edited on 06/19/2013 1:53:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
“That doesn’t follow at all. A round stone might share in the substance of the Earth, but it’s not as great as the Earth. “
It follows, because you are arguing, based on no evidence whatsoever, that Adam was omnipresent in the garden, and that, by sharing in this substance, so shall we. Though nowhere does it say that we will ever share in divinity in the scripture.
Adam was made in God's "image and likeness." What do you suppose that means?
“Adam was made in God’s “image and likeness.” What do you suppose that means?”
Probably exactly what I already told you before.
You didn’t knock my scriptures down, you just quoted other ones. Do you not know that the two Scriptures you quoted from Mark and Luke are further compliments to Mary because she always did God’s Will and kept His Word? I accept all Scripture and try to learn further meanings from them and don’t just ignore them, throw them out, or oppose them with other Scriptures because they don’t line up with my limited notions. So many other Christians quote Scripture to me, but often seem to have no concept of the deeper and further meanings of those Scriptures outside of a surface-level first interpretation.
If you believe in Scripture alone, why do you keep quoting “The Secret of the Rosary” which I have read and like?
No, the division among Christians proves that we don't have Jn 17:22 unity right now.
This verse also does not teach the pantheism of the believers.
Nor does the Church. Belief that those in heaven have become perfectly united to Christ isn't pantheism. The Church teaches that those in heaven and those on earth are all part of the mystical Body of Christ. And that those whose union with the Trinity has been perfected in heaven achieve a closeness with Christ that isn't attained on earth.
It doesn’t literally mean that there is some part of us that is present in Zion.
Catholic teaching is that we on earth (church militant) worship in union with the Church Triumphant in heaven and that Hb 12:22-24, 28 is an apt description of what takes place at every Holy Mass. All of heaven is united with those taking part in the liturgy on earth in solemn worship of the Most Holy Trinity.
Yes, but your belief that mankind can share in the divine attributes is blasphemous.
I'll stick with Sacred Scripture which says that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God. And that Christians are conformed to the image of the Son, who is himself the image of the Father. That's not to say that we become deities, rather we "participate in the divine nature" (2 Pt 1:4) by the indwelling of Christ and the Holy Spirit that Paul speaks of. And that puts us back to the unity of John 17 that Jesus spoke of.
Peace be with you.
“No, the division among Christians proves that we don’t have Jn 17:22 unity right now.”
The unity of John 14, which you cited, and that unity in John 17, is not one of a corporate fleshy body of people inside walls made by man. This is simply a Roman conception. The unity is one in spirit and in truth amongst all true Christians and their God. There can never be unity amongst heretics and believers even if all were under the umbrella of one organization. Nor should a mere unity amongst other human beings be desired. This unity must be centered on the Gospel and on Jesus Christ against all error. All other conceptions are simply vanity.
“Nor does the Church. Belief that those in heaven have become perfectly united to Christ isn’t pantheism.”
Belief that one becomes “perfectly united” in the sense of literally sharing in divinity and becoming omnipresent is indeed pantheism. You are claiming that you will become a part of God in substance. Rather than united with God as Father and children.
“Catholic teaching is that we on earth (church militant) worship in union with the Church Triumphant in heaven”
Catholic teaching cannot grant human beings the divine attributes and does not trump the scriptures.
I’d stick to the scripture and avoid the deification of human beings if I were you.
Where did I cite Jn 14? Will do so below though.
Belief that one becomes “perfectly united” in the sense of literally sharing in divinity and becoming omnipresent is indeed pantheism.
You were the one asserting omnipresence was a necessity of the communion of the saints. I spoke of the divine indwelling as stated in scripture.
Rather than united with God as Father and children.
I said our unity with the triune God is perfected. Never said it was a peer relationship not parent-child relationship.
Catholic teaching cannot grant human beings the divine attributes
True, but she also doesn't hide from scriptures that point to the divine indwelling.
...does not trump the scriptures.
The Church is the custodian of scripture. The New Testament springs from the Church, not vice versa. Did Jesus say that he was leaving his followers a how-to manual that they were free to interpret as they wished?
I’d stick to the scripture and avoid the deification of human beings if I were you.
Jesus established a church, not a book. I'll stick to his church and her interpretation of scripture, which includes the teaching of divine indwelling (Jn 14:17; Rom 8:9-11; 1 Cor 3:16 and 6:19; Gal 2:20; 2 Pt 1:4, etc), thank you very much :)
Peace be with you.
“You were the one asserting omnipresence was a necessity of the communion of the saints. I spoke of the divine indwelling as stated in scripture.”
Of course it’s required. If Mary dwells inside every Catholic on the planet by sharing in the omnipresence of God, it is what it is. It doesn’t matter if you rephrase it or make it pretty. If she is in more than one place at one time, she is omnipresent.
“True, but she also doesn’t hide from scriptures that point to the divine indwelling.”
Is this Romish logic? God dwells in us, therefore, we become a God? Where does it say that any man can share in the divine attributes?
“The Church is the custodian of scripture. The New Testament springs from the Church, not vice versa. Did Jesus say that he was leaving his followers a how-to manual that they were free to interpret as they wished?”
Isn’t this just argument from assertion? What do I care about your religion’s interpretation when it’s not even logical or scriptural?
No, it's the position you prefer to assert. God is not bound by the laws of nature, nor are you privy to all his ways of working.
God dwells in us, therefore, we become a God?
Those are your words, not mine. If a glass is full of milk, does the glass cease to be a glass and become milk instead?
What do I care about your religion’s interpretation when it’s not even logical or scriptural?
Who said God's ways must be logical? (Is 55:8-9) A requirement for extensive scriptural explanation of a practice or belief before accepting it is a tradition of the reformers. Scripture doesn't teach that, nor did Jesus. And isn't it a curious thing that many sola scriptura Christians--am NOT saying this applies to you because I don't know you--reject practices that are clearly stated in scripture, such as remarriage after divorce? Not intending any disrespect, it seems that many of my nonCatholic brethren like to pick and choose which parts of scripture they wish to adhere to. And no, that's not an insult. It's an admission, having once been there myself. I became Catholic after I could no longer pass over so much scripture that supported Catholic beliefs and practices.
Peace be with you. Oh, and thank you for expressing yourself in a way that was respectful, well for the most part ;), even though I know some of the beliefs we discussed are likely very repugnant to you. I'm heading into a busy weekend but I'm sure we'll meet again on one of these threads.
“God is not bound by the laws of nature,”
Human beings are bound to being in one place at a time. Like this guy:
Dan 10:12-14 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. (13) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (14) Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
“nor are you privy to all his ways of working.”
I’m privy to the fact that the scripture doesn’t teach that people become omnipresent after they die.
“Those are your words, not mine. If a glass is full of milk, does the glass cease to be a glass and become milk instead?”
If a sentence is pointless, does that stop you from writing it?
“Who said God’s ways must be logical? (Is 55:8-9)”
Isa 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. (9) For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
So this proves that God is illogical and gives human beings the ability to be omnipresent? It says God’s thoughts are higher than our own. Not that they are more disordered than our own.
“A requirement for extensive scriptural explanation of a practice or belief before accepting it is a tradition of the reformers.”
So how come Jesus always debated the Pharisees using the scripture? And why are we told to “study” to show ourselves approved, and that the scriptures are useful for doctrine, reproof, instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be perfect? (2 Tim 2:15, 2 Tim 3:16)
Aren’t you just conceding that your tradition has no biblical or logical basis?
Omnipresence remains irrelevant as it's your assertion not mine that life in the spiritual realm is subject to the physical laws of nature. I think you know perfectly well I wasn't suggesting that God's thoughts are disordered. Is it "logical" to the finite human mind that God would condescend to take on our lowly form? Or be tortured to death for you or me?
So how come Jesus always debated the Pharisees using the scripture?
Did he not point out to them their errors in understanding and applying Scripture? It doesn't seem that the meaning was self-evident to them. Did he not have to explain scripture to two of his own disciples on the Emmaus road? Apparently they needed personal tutoring too. Doesn't 2 Pt 3:15-16 tell us that parts of Paul's letters are difficult to understand? And 2 Pt 1:20 that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation?" Rather, the Spirit is promised to teach all things (Jn 14:26) to the apostles ("you" is plural) at the Last Supper. Jesus didn't make this promise to the crowds that followed him. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
And why are we told to “study” to show ourselves approved
Scripture study and theology based on scripture alone are two different things. The directive in 2 Tm 2:15 is to Timothy as church leader. "Yourself" is singular. Paul's instruction is for Timothy to teach correctly. And no, I'm not saying laity shouldn't study scripture. I'm saying this particular verse addresses a church leader with authority to teach. It doesn't instruct laity to grab a scroll and reach their own conclusions. It's also not explicit whether the word is spoken or written. Elsewhere Paul uses "word of truth" to refer to preaching.
... and that the scriptures are useful for doctrine, reproof, instruction in righteousness,
No Catholic would disagree with usefulness of Scripture for those purposes, but the verse doesn't say that scripture contains everything necessary for doctrine or instruction, only that it's useful.
so that the man of God may be perfect?
Perfect for what? You left off the end of the sentence (2 Tm 3:17), which is "for every good work." Did you not (correctly) state in post #27 that works cannot save you? What perfects you for good works that cannot save? Scripture? Or the doctrine, instruction, etc for which scripture is useful?
Aren’t you just conceding that your tradition has no biblical or logical basis?
Scripture plainly says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Jesus in Mt 10 tells his apostles, "He who receives you receives me..." Scripture also confirms the authority of church leaders, not the individual in Heb 13:17 (leaders who, BTW, taught orally as verse 7 indicates) and 1 Thes 5:12.
Peace be with you.
“Omnipresence remains irrelevant as it’s your assertion not mine that life in the spiritual realm is subject to the physical laws of nature.”
It’s not my assertion. It’s based on the fact that the Angel Gabriel was hung up by the devil of Persia for 21 days, and wasn’t also with Daniel while with the devil, while also being in heaven. If what you said is true about the “spiritual realm,” then Gabriel shouldn’t be limited to being in one place at one time. Your assertion basically says that human beings are not only just greater than the angels, but are somehow sharing in God’s omnipresence giving them the ability to be present with every Catholic on Earth. This has no basis in scripture, and it is blasphemous, because the divine attributes can only belong to God.
“I think you know perfectly well I wasn’t suggesting that God’s thoughts are disordered.”
You said that His thoughts didn’t have to be logical. Becareful with how you word things.
“Did he not point out to them their errors in understanding and applying Scripture?”
His problem wasn’t with how they were APPLYING scripture. His problem was that they weren’t applying scripture at all, and instead replacing the teachings of God with their traditions.
Mar_7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Think of them as ancient Catholics, except they didn’t have any funny ideas about the deification of mankind.
“And 2 Pt 1:20 that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation?””
That’s not what it says. It says:
2Pe 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
There’s no “you” there as you insultingly claim. That’s simply you trying to wrest the scripture out of the hands of the faithful. It says that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” And it follows “for...” (because of, due to) “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but... as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” The meaning from the context is that prophecy did not come from the private mental faculties of a man, as if they were invented by individuals, but were inspired by God.
” Doesn’t 2 Pt 3:15-16 tell us that parts of Paul’s letters are difficult to understand?”
It says of “those who are unlearned and unstable wrest.” Are you unstable and unlearned?
There’s a cure for that!
2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
“Rather, the Spirit is promised to teach all things (Jn 14:26) to the apostles (”you” is plural) at the Last Supper. Jesus didn’t make this promise to the crowds that followed him.”
By that logic, only the Apostles have the Holy Spirit. None of us have Him and any of these promises from Christ on chapter 14. Therefore, all the men and women who were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost with spiritual gifts and power must have been Apostles. Stephen, who moved in power and wisdom by the Spirit, must have been an Apostle. And when Paul wrote this:
1Co 2:12-14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The people Paul was here writing to must have all been Apostles too, because we know that the Holy Spirit ONLY teaches the Apostles, per your reading of John 14.
Or, more logically, you’re just trying to get people to stop reading the Bible so we don’t question the fables of Catholicism about divine human beings!
“The directive in 2 Tm 2:15 is to Timothy as church leader.”
By that logic, the entire epistle should be thrown out since it was specifically written to Timothy and not to anyone else. I’m sure the Papists would enjoy that, but good luck getting anyone else to agree.
“Perfect for what? You left off the end of the sentence (2 Tm 3:17), which is “for every good work.” Did you not (correctly) state in post #27”
It doesn’t say that at all. It says “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” There’s no “perfect for good works,” though that is also implied. That is just you inserting your words into the text, AGAIN, to wrest the scriptures away from the faithful. The benefit of scripture comes from its profitably in doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. Therefore perfection cannot be limited to just instruction in righteousness. It must be so in doctrine, reproof, and correction as well, which applies to wisdom. It simply follows that when the “man of God may be perfect,” that he is also “furnished for good works.”
“Scripture plainly says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.”
The scripture doesn’t limit the church to the Apostles. Just your silly religion that resorts to these power-trip arguments to get away from not being able to explain their “human beings are omnipresent after death” theology.
... as you insultingly claim.
No insult was intended but if you wish to find one any way, do as you please. .
That’s simply you trying to wrest the scripture out of the hands of the faithful.
Once again your "discernment" of my motives misses the mark.
Are you unstable and unlearned?
According to every translation I looked at, the unstable and unlearned are the ones who twist Paul's meaning. Nice job evading the point (the difficulty of some of Pauls' passages) and taking the low road.
By that logic, only the Apostles have the Holy Spirit.
Only if such logic includes willfully casting aside other scriptures and putting words into my mouth.
we know that the Holy Spirit ONLY teaches the Apostles, per your reading of John 14
Then whatever "we know" would appear to have more to do with straw men and less to do with reading scripture in its entirety. Catholics don't interpret verses in isolation from other scriptures, for example in this case the entire 12th chapter of 1 Corinthians.
Therefore, all the men and women who were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost with spiritual gifts and power must have been Apostles.
Only if one chooses to evade the obvious by suggesting the ridiculous.
By that logic, the entire epistle should be thrown out since it was specifically written to Timothy.
Only if such logic seeks to avoid making a reasoned response to scriptural support for hierarchy of authority in the Church.
It says “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” ... AGAIN, to wrest the scriptures away from the faithful.
AGAIN, your discernment of motive is inaccurate. Because sola scriptura Christians tend to lop off the end of that verse, as you did, I've looked at more than 20 nonCatholic translations. Those in keeping with the one I gave far outnumber yours. I have also taken the time to read what nonCatholic commentators who accept a translation the same as or similar to mine have had to say. It's quite interesting to read. I wonder if you would accuse them of wresting away scripture too? No matter, the fact remains that you shortened a verse, omitting its reference to works after your earlier comment #27. I'm content for that to speak for itself.
Just your silly religion that resorts to these power-trip arguments ...
Insult is the tool of those whose positions can't stand on their own merit. By their fruits ye shall know them. I won't be wasting any more of my time trying to dialogue charitably with someone who prefers to impute negative motives where none are intended and who responds with belittlement instead of reasoned responses. Any further pings from you will be ignored.
“If you wish to believe that Daniel provides a full explanation of the capabilities of angels, be my guest. Your position that Daniel refutes my beliefs rests on having incorrectly stated my beliefs. Hardly persuasive.”
Notice how in the first sentence you reject the example of the angel Gabriel being stuck in one place at a time because Daniel’s aim wasn’t a “full explanation of the capabilities of angels.” Which is pretty ridiculous, by the way. If it’s the capability of angels to be in more than one place at a time, why not right then? Are angels omnipresent only sometimes, but not other times? Oh wait, I forgot, you guys pray to ANGELS TOO, don’t ya? So of course you’d say something ridiculous like this without attempting to reconcile it with your religious belief. It’s a more serious problem than I originally realized. But then in the next sentence, you assert that my conclusion comes from incorrectly stating your beliefs.
So, what ARE your beliefs? That angels are omnipresent, but not really, just kidding? They’re just EVERYWHERE they need to be every time a Catholic prays to them, even when millions of Catholics are doing it at the exact same time?
“According to every translation I looked at, the unstable and unlearned are the ones who twist Paul’s meaning. Nice job evading the point (the difficulty of some of Pauls’ passages) and taking the low road.”
How did I evade the point? What difference does it make if there are “unlearned” and “unstable” people? Say, for example, if someone denies the Trinity. Are you incapable of setting them straight just because you’re not a Priest or a Bishop? Or are you just going to tell the infidel “We believe the Trinity, and we assert that this is the truth because so and so in whatever council decreed it.” What rational person is going to take that argument seriously? Either the scripture always taught it, or the council invented it. If it’s the latter, it is horribly repugnant. If it’s the former, who can dare stand against it? Yet, the latter argument is the one you’re expecting me to take as the most persuasive.
“Then whatever “we know” would appear to have more to do with straw men and less to do with reading scripture in its entirety. Catholics don’t interpret verses in isolation from other scriptures,”
But that’s exactly what you’ve done in denying that the Holy Spirit is within the believer as a universal helper. You said that Christ was speaking only to the Apostles on John 14, not to everyone else, but to the authorities of your fictional church with walls only. If He is only around to teach the Apostles, and that He supposedly only passes this on to Priests and Catholic authorities in like manner (which is a logical leap you never even attempted to prove in the scripture), what the heck is He doing in everybody else? Doing nothing?
Am I just supposed to ignore the scripture that makes it clear He is the SAME in everyone? There were even Prophetesses in Acts, whom we can assume weren’t ordained Priests according to the Catholic system. Yet you’re sitting here telling me that only Catholic authorities have the Holy Spirit within them to teach them the truth? And then you’re denying the consequences of your own argument and calling it a straw man!
This is just like the case with your on again off again omnipresent Angels and human beings. You want me to believe both options at the same time!
“Because sola scriptura Christians tend to lop off the end of that verse, as you did,”
Not only did I not chop it off, unlike you I didn’t invent the first part of it to give it a limited and false meaning! Are you just going to repeat the same point you made a second time, even after I already responded to it?
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.