Posted on 02/08/2015 6:51:31 PM PST by Coleus
| Mon. Feb. 9 at 8:00 PM ET Tue. Feb. 10 at 1:00 AM ET Fri. Feb. 13 at 1:00 PM ET |
|
DR. IAN MURPHY
Former Baptist and Agnostic Dr. Ian Murphy about his faith journey, and how it ultimately lead him home to the Catholic Church. Hosted by Marcus Grodi. |
I have Jesus, and once one has Him, there NOTHING to add.
Prove to me by scripture that your claim is correct then I’ll accept what you have to say.
Yes, it’s a work of God that WE do, a work of God that Jesus commanded.
“Prove to me by scripture that your claim is correct then I’ll accept what you have to say.”
I don’t believe you ever would. Protestants here routinely demand verses as proof for things they have been taught by their Protestant masters to believe are false. Verses are then posted to them. The Protestants then rely on their Protestant understanding of doctrine (all man-made) to say that those verses don’t mean what Catholics say they mean. Some Protestants take that song and dance a step further by using the Bible to show that the Bible doesn’t mean what the Bible says - all without seeing the obvious problem this causes for sola scriptura (yet again).
And here is the other problem:
“I have Jesus, and once one has Him, there NOTHING to add.”
I said nothing about “adding” anything. I said having Christ more completely. You have already resorted to distorting what I said. Perhaps you did it because what I said doesn’t fit your Protestant doctrines, but in any case, it is not only a wrong thing to do but it tells me that your other claim (”Prove to me...then I’ll accept what you have to say”) is simply not believable.
You still haven’t told me where the law against eating blood was rescinded especially for those like Jesus and the apostles who were still living under that law.
“You still haven’t told me where the law against eating blood was rescinded especially for those like Jesus and the apostles who were still living under that law.”
1) You still haven’t shown me where all 613 Old Testament laws are still in effect on Christians.
2) You still haven’t shown me where Jesus - who is GOD - is bound by any law.
3) You still haven’t shown me how Jesus, in Mark 7:18-23 (and Mt. 15:17-20) must have been lying like a Protestant anti-Catholic when He declared that all foods, including animal blood, “clean” and that to eat them is not a sin.
4) You still haven’t shown me how God, in Acts 10, must have been lying like a Protestant anti-Catholic when St. Peter had a dream, in which all “unclean” foods were declared “clean to eat” by God Himself.
5) You still haven’t shown me how, in Matthew 23:13-36, Jesus must have been lying like a Protestant anti-Catholic when He said that it is not external ritual purity, which came from things like circumcision and ritual hand washing, but internal purity, which comes from living a morally upright life in God’s grace, which matters most.
That's because I never said that. The Holy Spirit and the apostles did however in Acts 15 say to not eat blood.
>>You still haven’t shown me where Jesus - who is GOD - is bound by any law.<<
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, born under the law,
Your own church says He was. Found here.
>>You still haven’t shown me how Jesus, in Mark 7:18-23 (and Mt. 15:17-20) must have been lying like a Protestant anti-Catholic when He declared that all foods, including animal blood, “clean” and that to eat them is not a sin.<<
Including blood you say? Please show that blood was EVER considered food to Jesus or the Israelites. Jesus was still under the law. That included eating blood.
>>You still haven’t shown me how God, in Acts 10, must have been lying like a Protestant anti-Catholic when St. Peter had a dream, in which all “unclean” foods were declared “clean to eat” by God Himself.<<
Again, please show where they EVER considered blood a food.
Jesus was born under the law and subject to it. Your own church concurs. The Holy Spirit through the apostles re stated the prohibition against eating blood as shown in Acts 15. Would you claim that the Holy Spirit was contradicting something Jesus said?
Now, why do you insist on teaching that Jesus sinned against the law He was born under and committed to keep?
“That’s because I never said that. The Holy Spirit and the apostles did however in Acts 15 say to not eat blood.”
That was to gentiles in Jewish company. So, your point is meaningless.
“Your own church says He was. Found here.”
No, actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man. Note, I said GOD. Jesus was not bound to the law in His divinity. He preceded the Law and will outlast it as well. He is not bound by it.
“Including blood you say? Please show that blood was EVER considered food to Jesus or the Israelites. Jesus was still under the law. That included eating blood.”
If it was prohibited as food, then it was considered a food.
“Would you claim that the Holy Spirit was contradicting something Jesus said?”
No, just contradicting you.
“Now, why do you insist on teaching that Jesus sinned against the law He was born under and committed to keep?”
I did no such thing. Jesus is GOD. He is not bound by the Mosaic Laws on kosher diet and neither are we. The New Covenant is IN HIS BLOOD.
Oh good grief. Yeah, that's why they included it in scripture for all generations everywhere.
>>No, actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man. Note, I said GOD.<<
Ok!!!! Here we have it folks. A Catholic claiming the separation of Jesus into man and God as two separate entities. One was subject to the law the other wasn't.<<
>>If it was prohibited as food, then it was considered a food.<<
Show where it was ever called food.
>>I did no such thing. Jesus is GOD. He is not bound by the Mosaic Laws on kosher<<
Whoa, wait...You just said Jesus the man was subject to the laws. Are you now saying that only Jesus the God ate the blood at the last supper but not Jesus the man?
In the church there is neither Jew nor Greek. All are one in Christ.
Besides, the Jews already knew enough not to eat blood.
No, actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man. Note, I said GOD. Jesus was not bound to the law in His divinity. He preceded the Law and will outlast it as well. He is not bound by it.
What a tragic lack of comprehension of the relation of God to His law you have just demonstrated.
God tells us to be holy as He is holy. The Law is the reflection of that holiness.
Since God commanded people to not eat blood, that is a reflection of His holiness. Jesus as God could not eat blood. He would be contradicting Himself.
Because you can’t or won’t try to prove your point.
That’s the thing if we discussed scripture then at least we’d have a starting point, but I don’t accept man made doctrines from any ‘Church’.
-JS
“Oh good grief. Yeah, that’s why they included it in scripture for all generations everywhere.”
Yep. Exactly.
“Ok!!!! Here we have it folks. A Catholic claiming the separation of Jesus into man and God as two separate entities.”
I did no such thing. Jesus is God and man, but as God He was not bound by the law - just as He was not bound by the laws of nature.
“One was subject to the law the other wasn’t.”
No, Jesus’ humanity was bound by laws but His divinity was not.
“Show where it was ever called food.”
If you’re eating it, it’s food.
“Whoa, wait...You just said Jesus the man was subject to the laws.”
No, I never said that. I said bound. For some reason you keep saying “subject”. I guess you didn’t know the two words mean different things. Public school education, right?
“Are you now saying that only Jesus the God ate the blood at the last supper but not Jesus the man?”
No, I’m not saying that.
“What a tragic lack of comprehension of the relation of God to His law you have just demonstrated.”
metmom, coming from you - who posts tragically lacking in comprehension Protestant anti-Catholic nonsensical stuff everyday - that’s hilarious.
“Because you can’t or won’t try to prove your point.”
I see no reason to post about something to you that you have already made clear you won’t even attempt to comprehend. I have no other rational explanation as to why you would distort what I said. Do you?
“That’s the thing if we discussed scripture then at least we’d have a starting point, but I don’t accept man made doctrines from any ‘Church’.”
I don’t believe you. Here’s why: What if I made a point about scripture that used a verse from 2 Maccabees, then what? It’s scripture, but your man-made doctrine says it isn’t. Logically no doctrine from the Church is man-made. Only Protestants have man-made doctrines for they have no Churches, but only man-made sects.
I comprehend scripture perfectly well through His guidance, but you won’t even dialogue with me.
You’d rather argue and try to insinuate that I don’t want to really learn (that’s made up out of thin air, my friend) because I never said as such.
And then continue your diatribe against Protestants, there are some churches that are cultish and don’t have Biblical doctrines.
The point is if one openly and honestly discusses The Word of God as authoritative (and yes I believe ONLY it is) then that’s a starting point.
And the most important question is: How is one saved (God’s way) not ours.
I think when answering this question we’d better look to what God has said and done to demonstrate His plan!
-JS
“I comprehend scripture perfectly well through His guidance, but you won’t even dialogue with me.”
If you comprehended scripture perfectly well you would not be in a man made sect nor hold man made doctrines. Also, I have absolutely no reason to believe you are interested in “dialogue”. If you were, you would not have distorted my words.
“You’d rather argue and try to insinuate that I don’t want to really learn (that’s made up out of thin air, my friend) because I never said as such.”
Again, you distorted what I said. That’s not made up out of thin air. It’s right there in the post. You didn’t even deny doing it.
“And then continue your diatribe against Protestants, there are some churches that are cultish and don’t have Biblical doctrines.”
All of them are Protestant or pseudo-Protestant. None of them are Catholic or Orthodox.
“The point is if one openly and honestly discusses The Word of God as authoritative (and yes I believe ONLY it is) then that’s a starting point.”
People who want to “openly and honestly discuss” something don’t distort what other people say. But you did.
“And the most important question is: How is one saved (God’s way) not ours.”
A more immediate question would be is, “How can someone who distorts another person’s words be so apparently blind to his own actions?”
“I think when answering this question we’d better look to what God has said and done to demonstrate His plan!”
I think when answering that question you’d better look at what the Bible says about bearing false witness against another. Until you do that and admit your fault there’s no real chance of “open and honest” “dialogue” in any case now is there?
As John Henry Newman, a former Protestant who knew Protestantism very well wrote:
“If you would have some direct downright proof that Catholicism is what Protestants make it to be, something which will come up to the mark, you must lie; else you will not get beyond feeble suspicions, which may be right, but may be wrong. Hence Protestants are obliged to cut their ninth commandment out of their Decalogue. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” must go, must disappear; their position requires the sacrifice. The substance, the force, the edge of their Tradition is slander. As soon as ever they disabuse their minds of what is false, and grasp only what is true,—I do not say they at once become Catholics; I do not say they lose their dislike to our religion, or their misgivings about its working;—but I say this, either they become tolerant towards us, and cease to hate us personally,—or, at least, supposing they cannot shake off old associations, and are prejudiced and hostile as before, still they find they have not the means of communicating their own feelings to others. To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation. There are indeed able men who can make a striking case out of anything or nothing, as great painters give a meaning and a unity to the commonest bush, and pond, and paling and stile: genius can do without facts, as well as create them; but few possess the gift. Taking things as they are, and judging of them by the long run, one may securely say, that the anti-Catholic Tradition could not be kept alive, would die of exhaustion, without a continual supply of fable.” (Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
You said:
>> Jesus is God and man, but as God He was not bound by the law - just as He was not bound by the laws of nature.<<
Then you said:
>>No, Jesus’ humanity was bound by laws but His divinity was not.<<
In post 28 you said:
>>No, actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man.<<
Also in post 28 you said:
>>Jesus is GOD. He is not bound by the Mosaic Laws on kosher<<
Also in post 27 you said:
>>actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man. Note, I said GOD. Jesus was not bound to the law in His divinity. He preceded the Law and will outlast it as well. He is not bound by it.<<
So you clearly said Jesus was both bound and subject of the law.
So I said:
>>"You just said Jesus the man was subject to the laws."<<
And your response was:
>>No, I never said that. I said bound. For some reason you keep saying “subject”. I guess you didn’t know the two words mean different things. Public school education, right?<<
You have two problems there. You say Jesus is both bound and a subject of the law as a man but then deny you said subject. You also claim that Jesus is both God and man and cannot be separated yet you separate them when they are eating the blood since only the man part is subject to that law but the God part isn't.
Did only Jesus the God part eat the blood since you claim it is that part that is not bound by the law but not the man part since He would be bound and subject to the law? And how would that be possible when you claim that Jesus is inseparably both God and Man when claiming Mary is the mother of God? I expect more double speak is coming.
“You have two problems there.”
No, actually I only have one: I mistakenly used the word “subject” in post 28 rather than the correct term “bound”. When dealing with anti-Catholics it is easy enough to pick up their misuse of terms.
“You say Jesus is both bound and a subject of the law as a man but then deny you said subject.”
No. He is bound, not subject, and I only once mistakenly used the word “subject”. And as I pointed out the words mean different things and you apparently did not know that.
“You also claim that Jesus is both God and man and cannot be separated yet you separate them when they are eating the blood since only the man part is subject to that law but the God part isn’t.”
False. I never separated the two natures. I just realize one is bound and one is not. That is not a separation, just the reality of existence.
“Did only Jesus the God part eat the blood since you claim it is that part that is not bound by the law but not the man part since He would be bound and subject to the law?”
Your premise is false. Jesus is not bound by the law since He is God. Jesus chooses to follow the law - correctly understood - because He is man. The Eucharist in no way violates the law for it is sacramental and a God made action. Thus, even if your “Jesus dividing” premise was correct - which is impossible - it wouldn’t matter since no violation of the law would be made by Jesus since He is God who fulfills the law and since the Eucharist is sacramental and a God given action.
“And how would that be possible when you claim that Jesus is inseparably both God and Man when claiming Mary is the mother of God?”
Simple. Your premise is wrong.
“I expect more double speak is coming.”
I expect you to fail to understand even the most basic things and label it double speak.
Of course. That Catholic god is not the God of scripture. Their Jesus is not the all forgiving, once for all Jesus of scripture. The Catholic Jesus only opened the door or "made a way" with man having to "merit" his way in.
Jesus would have been breaking the law by eating blood vlad. Not two ways around 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.