AmericanPapist Comments
Pity the pope doesn't get angry about people worshiping idols and men, or about people trusting in works and dead women to save their souls.
You think Mary's dead, huh sbrogden?
I think she's more alive right now than you and I.
sbrogden: anti-Catholic ignorance on display.
Whey don't you find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, instead of relying on what those ignorant of Catholic teaching tell you?
I support sbrogden's total ignorance of Catholic teaching. It makes my job easier.
All saints in heaven - save Enoch & Elijah - have died in the flesh. That's what I meant by Mary being dead. I believe she's in heaven - alive in Christ, not the flesh.
I've researched a lot of RCC teaching - I would be standing with Luther and Calvin and other reformers if I were alive then.
I've researched a lot of RCC teaching
A thoroughly caricatured version of it I'm sure as thses canned objections are so tired that even many anti-Catholics won't touch them any more. A troll is a troll is a troll.
You can assume all you want, knowing not what I have read. I have RCC friends and relatives, have read much from the RCC and from those opposed to her. And much of my position regarding the RCC comes from the one sure source of Truth, the Book the RCC tried to keep locked up but was unable to do so.
actually, when it was "locked up", it was to prevent theft, so the priests could continue publically reading the Bible to the parishoners. Before the printing press, it was very difficult to find or afford copies of the bible. so you see, Catholics actually helped preserve scripture through the dark ages. Monks spending long hours dutifully copying down texts.
See how just a little bit of information radically challenges your pre-conceived notions? Imagine what else you might learn if you stopped a second to listen.
Pax.
You can assume all you want, knowing not what I have read.
Sorry for that messed up comment above. Anyway:
You can assume all you want, knowing not what I have read.
Your own words are the evidence because no one (including many reasonable Protestants) who was seriously studied the Church would float the ridiculous notion that the Church teaches Pelagianism (semi or otherwise).
I have RCC friends and relatives, have read much from the RCC and from those opposed to her.
What of it? The teaching is what it is and what you are giving ain't it.
And much of my position regarding the RCC comes from the one sure source of Truth, the Book the RCC tried to keep locked up but was unable to do so.
All Catholic doctrine can be defended biblically which is more than we can say for the man-made doctrine of Bible-alone. See: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism
So since everyone else is preoccupied with the slice-and-dash on Our Lady, I'll pick up on the other three:
Sbrogden:
"pity the pope doesn't get angry about worshiping idols and men, or about people trusting in works"
1. Supporting the mass distribution of condoms and the morning after pill is worshiping idols and men. If you can't figure out how this is the case, why did you post on this blog? For a Lark? Just to see what "them crazy Catholics" would say? If so, I guess there's no 'reason' for me to be responding to you, given the fact that you prima facie reject that Catholics have that human capacity commonly referred to as reason. If, rather, you posted in response to this blog because you have something nuanced and more interesting to say, fine. Make sure it actually isn't self-refuting/selfindulgent next time. (Which, dear friends, I am earnestly hoping that I don't fall prey to myself in the rest of this comment.)
2. I recall some wailing and gnashing of teeth were in order for the servant who did nothing with the relatively small responsibility/talent he was given.
Since it took nearly 500 years to reach some sort of accord with the Lutherans and Calvinists on the doctrine of works, it's safe to say that convincing you with such snarky, veiled references to the Gospel won't change your mind. At least you get the gist of the position though.
If anyone wishes to be more precise than me, I welcome the friendly correction.
It would require some effort for him to find out what the Catholic Church *actually* teaches. Maybe he's just too lazy to check out whether or not the bilge he's been taught about the Church is true. Or maybe he's secure in his ignorance and is just too scared to check out the facts. But if he chooses to continue to believe the lies he's been told about the Church, he ought to reflect on who the Father of Lies is.
My bet isn't lazy or secure. The tone of his gratuitous remarks instead suggests smug and self-righteous. Those feelings are like an addictive drug to some people.
I'll refrain from further comment because I've been sucked into the energy-vortex by off-topic brickbat hurlers too many times. Pax.
Scott W.,
But the vortex is so fun!? Maybe. Or not. In any event, AmP's comments on the matter seem to strike the right response. The Brazilian President is surely either an idiot or talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. Whether it's either of these cases or both, the best way to promote virtue can't be to provide vehicles for vice.
OH, AND you don't even have to be Catholic to see the stupidity of his comments, either. You can be a Consequentialist like John Stuart Mill and still argue that he has no conception of the common good through which he's making his decision here.
Ya'll assumers and name callers: assume all you want. The RCC pollutes people with idolatry: worshiping the man ya'll call the pope, believing you need an earthly priest if ye be born again in Christ, RCC doctrine teaches Mary helps people get saved.
Christ alone is sufficient, He needs no help from anyone and accepts no help from anyone on conversion of dead souls into born in the Spirit souls - which are called in the Bible as Christians, Saints, and believers.
Check out this page for more Him: http://menofhonorministry.org/
Di...tSufficient.htm
I'm done. I've got no patience with willful ignorance.
How is it that I've made reference to the Bible more than the anti-papal guy? Doesn't that strike anyone as counter-stereotypical? And he's the one quoting dogma at the papists!
Bill, Scott, I'm with you. Pax Vobiscum.
Thank you for making your remark, Mr.Peters. As a brazilian who enjoys this blog, your words were exactly what I wanted to express - and I couldn't, wordless of this situation.
It is curious how people here seems to ignore the teaching of chastity until the marriage, and blame the Church in the position of anti-conceptional methods after they got some sexual-related disease.
Thank you, once again.
I won't feed the troll. However, if all you need is Christ's salvific act 2,000 years ago, then do you need the Bible?
It seems you hold two mutually exclusive positions. One says Christ alone is sufficient. The other requires the Bible.
Do you, or do you not, need the Bible for your salvation?
Also, you really are incorrect about what the Church teaches. I would suggest starting with the Idiot's Guide to Catholicism (a very good book), and the Catechism, and working from there.
The fact that Christ died once for the ungodly and was raised from the dead. That happened 2,000 years ago and is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves men from their sins. We need His Bible because men love lies and tell lies to one another - the Bible is God's Truth, the only antidote to the lies of men. Such men are in the church - John, Peter, Paul, and the Lord spoke about this. I will tell you the verses if you can't find them.
Sbrogden,
You are correct -- Jesus is the answer, the ONLY redeemer for mankind -- "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts4:12
As Jesus says, "Apart from Me, you can do nothing." John15:5
NO ONE can know these things either, apart from Jesus because "... no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit." 1Cor.12:3
Now you must be careful, Sbrogden, not to fall prey to the devil who is always roaming about looking for some one to devour. (1Peter5:8) Remember Gama'li-el's advice in Acts 5:35,38-39 "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men...for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"
If Roman Catholics, standing within the Church's official dogma, believe and confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and is the only way by which men can be saved, that all else is accomplished only by grace that Jesus earned for us by His death and resurrection (including all that pertains to the Blessed Mother of Jesus), that Jesus is indeed our righteousness, all of which is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (that is, one must consent to all these tenets to be a Catholic) -- if Roman Catholics believe and confess all these things, then you must not waste your energy on fighting doctrines that obviously have not kept RC's from recognizing the Lord nor from seeing the same moral truths you see. The real enemy is getting away while you needlessly talk against the Roman Catholic faith.
Sbrogden, you don't have to fight Catholics to love the Lord. You are fighting your own brothers and sisters.
You have to understand that to the evangelical Protestant, there is no distinction between Our Lord and the Bible. For example, evangelical Protestants are fond of referring to the Bible as "the Word of God." But St. John avers that Christ Himself is the Word. A bible church I drive past frequently has a marquee sign saying that "the Bible is the bread of life"! But Our Lord Himself avers that He is the Bread of Life (John 6:35). So clearly, for the evangelical Protestant there is no contradiction between saying that Christ is sufficient and the Bible is sufficient.
sbrogden,
What did men do in the couple of centuries between the death and resurrection of Christ and the compilation of the Bible?
The same question, slightly revised: "What did men do during the three centuries or so between the time of the events related in the New Testament and the time when the Catholic bishops decided which writings would be included in the New Testament, and which writings would be excluded?" And what passages IN the New Testament indicate WHICH writings belong in the New Testament and what writings should be excluded?
In other words: How could the Bible guide the Catholic Church in compiling the Bible? Isn't that something like: "Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin which he helped his father build"?
Did Jesus ever say, "I will send you a Bible"? Or did he say, "I am founding my Church, and will send the Holy Spirit"?
sbrogden is not paying attention to anything we post. He is talking past us. He seems to have a script that he is incapable of or unwilling to deviate from. That he might be wrong about what the Church teaches does not enter his mind. It is closed to any information that does not fit his template.
I'm not ignoring ya'll - I didn't even know about this site until I saw the article about Brazil. I find the RCC guard dogs on patrol in many places on 'net. Same song, same Pavlovian response.
Regarding how the NT came about:
The Catholic Church claims that it gave us the Bible. Is this supported by the historical evidence?
The Old Testament was written by God's inspired prophets, patriarchs, psalmists, judges, and kings. It was faithfully copied and preserved by Jewish scribes. Modern Protestant Bibles have the same content as the Hebrew Bible.
The New Testament was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Catholics, because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. This was over two centuries before Constantine's "conversion".
The early Church did not have the New Testament as we know it. Rather, individuals and local congregations had portions of it. They would have one or more of the Gospels, some of the letters which Apostles had written, and perhaps the Book of Acts or the Book of Revelation.
Why weren't all of these books collected in one place? Look at what the books themselves say. Individual apostles wrote them for specific audiences. For example, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written for Theophilus. (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Most of the Epistles were written to specific churches or to specific individuals. (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:1; 3 John 1:1)
The early Christians expected that Jesus would return for His Church at any moment. As a result, they didn't see the need for long-term planning for future generations. Furthermore, Christians were persecuted by the Romans. When your life is in constant danger, it is difficult to collect writings which are scattered all over the Roman Empire. So it took time to collect all of these writings, decide which ones were authoritative Scripture, and make complete sets of them.
By the time of Origen (185-254 A.D.), there was general agreement about most of the New Testament. However, there was disagreement as to whether the following six epistles should be part of the New Testament canon: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. This was sixty years before the conversion of Emperor Constantine.
The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical "only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon". In other words, it didn't create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed.
So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. However, Catholic monks helped preserve the Bible by copying it.
Sure you are. You either don't know what the Catholic Church teaches and are not humble enough to admit your ignorance and find out what the Chruch really teaches, or you do know what the Church teaches and have deliberately attributed to the Church teachings it does not teach.
So, are you merely ignorant or are you a liar?
You are one or the other. There is no third possibility.
Do not some people within all churches depart from the Truth and worship idols? This happens regardless of what the church teaches, as men are inclined to follow their heart rather than Truth.
Does the RCC rebuke its people for doing so? Do you think the worship of the dead as practiced in Mexico is within RCC doctrine?
What, from my previous post, is historically inaccurate?
Nice copy and paste job. But do you understand the words, or why they are incorrect?
Sbrogden, your logical contradictions are approaching being staggering in number. As are your historical inaccuracies. It is unchristian to present falsehoods as if they were truth, and to present yourself as being knowledge about something when you are not.
I have only one question: have you considered the possibility that you are wrong?
Heh...appealing to the teaching authority of the Council while continuing to deny that they had such authority.
Neat trick. Or was the Council not a part of the Church?
In other words, the Canon was in dispute during the 3-4th centuries, settled during the 4-5th centuries (by the Church), and remained so for 1100 years or so.
Sbrogden, why do you call me a dog? Will you then also treat me as such? Why?
"I find the RCC guard dogs on patrol in many places on 'net. Same song, same Pavlovian response."
In my post, calling certain RCC apologists "watch dogs" is a metaphor. Do you not understand language and different forms therein? Many do not, and woodenly read documents without understanding. Such as those who think Jesus meant we should eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:48). Strangely enough, the people who take that literally, instead of comprehending it as a metaphor for the Spiritual bread and blood He provides to His, do not take John 10:7 literally.
FYI, I also think Rev 22:15 is speaking in metaphor in using the term, "dogs".
LCB: I believe you have been tacitly answered.
LCB, I think you received a tacit reply.
Hmmm, 8 minute time-lag on the first try. Thought it didn't take. My time-warp-detection device must be defective.
Sbrogden, is this the verse that is supposed to clarify your meaning?
Rev.22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
Somehow I don't feel less demoted to dogdom, Sbrodgen. The "metaphorical" dogs have some mean pack-mates.
I dunno... it's the tone, ya know? I'm not feelin' the love, brother.
You are like Paul who in his zeal persecuted the very God he loved.
Sbrodgen, do you really believe Jesus would let disciples walk away from Him and their salvation simply because they were too wooden to get HIS metaphor? John 6:66
Why didn't He call them back, tell they didn't understand? Instead He watched them walk away to their spiritual deaths. Either He was very mean, or His words weren't metaphorical.
In fact Jesus says 5 times (John6:51,53,54,55,56) "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." He didn't say word, spirit, eternal life, grace...is the bread or is what He was giving for the life of the world. He said "the bread ... is my flesh." I dunno, if Jesus says something one time, something like "You must be born again" (Jn3:16), I believe Him. So do you. Now He says something 5 times and we're supposed to make it a metaphor? The early Church (ie before Constantine) believed Jesus literally, as we know from contemporary historical and doctrinal writings. God allowed His Church, of whom He promised that "no one is able to snatch them" from His hands John10:29, for 2007 years to believe Him literally and, what's more, to actually worship the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus, as only God is to be worshipped. All based on a belief which derived directly from Jesus' own words. God would allow His people to make such a hugh mistake and be damned for idolatry? No, we know He would not.
Yes, I believe He would let those had followed Him for the filling of their bellies to walk away to their eternal doom, just as He apparently did with the rich young ruler in Luke 18:18 and following to walk away to his eternal doom. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
He also didn't explicitly say He wasn't really "the door of the sheep" so why don't you take Him at "His word" on that verse (John 10:7)?
Sbrogden,
Again. Is it possible that you are wrong? Even just a little bit?
"those had followed Him for the filling of their bellies"
Sbrogden, where does it say in Scripture that these particular disciples who walked away in John 6:66 were following him for this reason? What is your source?
In John6:64-66 the Scriptures say they left because they didn't believe:
" 'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.' After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him."
What Jesus said to the young ruler was as clear as what He said to His disciples in John 6. He spoke, they disagree, they leave knowing what exactly they cannot accept.
"He also didn't explicitly say He wasn't really "the door of the sheep" so why don't you take Him at "His word" on that verse (John 10:7)?"
I cannot understand what you are asking here. Can you try again.
I still ain't feeling the love, Sbrogden.
John 6:22-27 shows the reason they followed Him and what the food He was offering was:
"22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)
24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.:
Regarding John 10:7 - You take John 6:53 literally, refusing to accept His flesh and blood as metaphors for spiritual nourishment. Yet, I dare say, you do not take John 10:7 literally, insisting that Jesus is a piece of wood which provides an opening and closing of something for sheep.
Now, regarding John 6:56 - do you think that Jesus physically resides in you and that you physically reside in Him, or is He talking about spiritual abiding?
The disciples who walked away took Jesus literally, and He didn't call to them: "Hey, wait! You're taking me literally when I was speaking figuratively." He let them go. If they misunderstood Jesus, He Who declared Himself to be the Truth would have been obligated to correct them, rather than to let error stand. Interestingly, this is the only place in scripture where anyone left Jesus for a doctrinal reason.
Sbrogden, that's a funny image, but though He is not a piece of wood, Jesus is a physical resurrected body, of which we are part and through which we can enter eternal life. Yes, we live both spiritually and physically in Him in whom we "live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28) He does physically reside in us also when we receive the Catholic Eucharist, His flesh and blood, soul and divinity.
Jesus was speaking to all the people in John6:24-27, and to all of them He said they were looking for more loaves to eat, but not all of them walked off to their eternal doom. No, Jesus clearly pointed out the fault of the John6:66'ers: "there are some of you who do not believe" Jn6:64. But He does tell them, as you point out, to seek "that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you" which He then goes on to tell them is His own flesh and blood.
Sbrogden, I am curious if you take anything in the Scripture literally? What is it if you do? How do you choose then what is and isn't to be taken literally? Who taught you? Who taught the ones who taught you? And finally, how do you know they know?
The context tells one what type of literature (allegory, metaphor, etc.) one is reading. The fact that you recognize the resurrected Christ has a physical body yet believe His physical body is spit up into millions of pieces each week defies reason and - more importantly - scriptural examination.
What do I take literally? Christ was born of a virgin, lived 33 years without sin, fulfilled myriad prophecies, was rejected and hated and killed to pay for my sins and the sins of man, and was raised from dead and seen by many witnesses and was taken to heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father and will one day judge the works of all men at the Great White Throne judgment. I believe He created the earth from nothing, made creatures to reproduce after their own kind, hung the stars and calls them by name, caused a big fish to carry Jonah to Nineveh, and shares His glory with no one and needs no help from anyone nor dwells in temples made by hands as if He had need of anything hands could make.
Sbrogden, so do I. Doesn't that mean we're on the same side? (1Cor.12:3, John6:65)
There is an real enemy to fight -- Eph6:12. And that is not you or I, because we're on the same side.
"killed to pay for my sins and the sins of man" except those He sent packing for mistaking his metaphor? You and I haven't done worse in our lifetimes than reject His words or, as you say, live for our bellies , yet He came after us, but not them? It doesn't add up, Sbrogden.
"believe His physical body is spit up into millions of pieces each week defies reason and - more importantly - scriptural examination."
Loaves and fishes -- His meaning wasn't about filling bellies. The same miracle is possible for any physical object He chooses. But ultimately, I believe this because He said it, 5 times, and made it clear He meant it literally by not correcting any supposed misunderstanding of the Jn6:66'ers who left Him at that moment because they couldn't believe.
How do you choose then what is and isn't to be taken literally? Who taught you? Who taught the ones who taught you? And finally, how do you know they know?
I suggest it is "the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." ITim3:15 -- the only Church that has existed from the beginning, that was founded on the apostles and has continued to this day, with unchanged doctrine, and by which, ultimately, all Christians have received the Gospel. Not by any individual, nor by each of us ourselves. If you can read any of the Church writings of the first 5 centuries, or of all the last 20, the doctrine presented there never changes.
Am I still a (metaphorical) dog?
Sbrogden, thanks for the dialog. Back to work for me today -- to fill my belly.
sbrogden, I used to be a fundamentalist,doing street witnessing with my Bible and taking on all comers, whether the head of the Bai'Hai sect or Mormons or Catholics,whom I regarded as you apparently do, as non-Christians. Read John's next to last post. We are on the same page. Have you read Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria and Polycarp? They gave their lives for Christ and were Catholic. Ignatius (martyred around 107 A.D.)in his writings uses the term 'catholic' to describe the Church. He and Polycarp (martyred around 155 A.D.) were disciples of St. John the Apostle. History does not support your view that the Catholic Church did not exist at that time! Also,both these martyrs for Christ wrote that the Host is totally the flesh of Jesus. They also speak of bishops.
Also, how com you write so contemptuously about Mary,(a dead woman), who according to the Bible, Luke 1:48, is to be honored and blessed for all generations? That is the inspired Word of God!! Jesus followed the 10 Commandments perfectly, since he was without sin and God. Do you think he appreciates your contempt for His mother, whom he loved and obeyed and honored on Earth and continues to do so? Is that Christian charity on your part to denigrate the woman who carried Jesus in her womb and spent 33 years living with Him? She had more time with Him then any other human being on earth and all you can do is downplay and denigrate her!! She was the first disciple and the foremost one! Are you jealous and are trying to make yourself look holier than she is?
How do you treat your own mother? She would not appreciate you going on behind her back trying to say negative things about her and she would consider it unloving on your part. Likewise with the Mother of God. She will forgive you, but you only harm yourself and your love for God by dishonoring her.
Jesus says that God is love. To be a Christian you must love and love and honor especially, Jesus, and those whom He loved and honored.
I still don't understand why sbrogden's would make nasty comments about the Catholic Church in this comment box. Because the Church is telling people not to fornicate and not to kill babies?
Even atheists will concede that the Bible alone is not pro-fornication or pro-"contraception". Sbrogden apparently believes that it is; or he believes that slagging the Catholic Church is more important than supporting moral truth from God.
Generally, "those who are not against us are for us", when it comes to doing the Lord's work. Hopefully, sbrogden will learn this someday.
The RCC is apostate. Its history is filled with false teaching, beginning with its imagined foundation and continuing with the false teaching about the pope being anyone's "Holy Father" (see Matthew 23:9). Hear this - ALL churches have error, not only the RCC. I am contending with the elders of my church over error. We who are in Christ are not pass over doctrinal error, but rebuke it.
Mary is blessed for all generations, but she has died the first death, as have all saints except Enoch and Elijah. She gave birth the human being that Christ took on upon Himself (Philippians 2:5 - 8) but this does NOT make her the "mother of God", as God the Son was not born. He is "I AM" - who was and is and is to come.
I do not see my comments as "nasty" - but certainly contrary to RCC doctrine which runs contrary to Scripture. I thank God for the stand the RCC takes on abortion. I deplore the stand the RCC takes on marriage, with the human tradition of annulment - which mocks God.
Actually, he is criticizing what he thinks are Catholic doctrines. It has been pointed out to him that the Church does not teach many of the things he has claimed it teaches, but it doesn't seem to register with him that he could be wrong.
Actually, I've seen lots of what I've described in person, in the news (including Catholic news) and on Catholic web sites.
Some of the things perhaps the RCC doesn't teach. But much it does. My previous post highlights a few.
Your view of Christ taking on a human body like a piece of clothing was the belief of many heresies in the the early Church and is not a Christian belief. And it is not a fundamentalist Christian belief or an evangelical belief. So you are apparently not even protestant in your beliefs!
Elisabeth said upon Mary entrance to her house, ..."And how have I deserved that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43. The word for Lord in Greek means 'God' and this is the inspired Word of God which says this! Please don't pretend to be a Christian. That Jesus is fully God and fully human is basic to all Christians, including protestants. That is what the Apostles taught and why Ignatius was eaten by lions.
So what if Mary died? The Church does not know if she died or was translated into heaven like Enoch, Elijah and according to the tradition of the Jews, as was likewise Moses. In fact, more scholars believe that she died than didn't. Death doesn't separate a Christian from the Body of Christ! Read I Cor.12.
"All churches have error..."
Then the Gates of Hell have prevailed.
Christ didn't take a human being upon Himself. He, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Father's only begotten Son, BECAME man. "The Word was made flesh", He didn't take it upon Himself.
The fact that all churches have error has no relation to the gates of hell prevailing. That's hilarious! It's the same as saying Christ's sacrifice wasn't adequate because men keep on sinning. The wold has not yet ended. Much trials yet await before the glorious return of the King.
Reconcile Philippians 2:7 (made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men) with John 1:14 (And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us). Are both true?
The problem with the RCC position is that it focuses primarily on the secondary - Mary - rather than on the primary - Jesus. And it creates a doctrine that is not found in Scripture. Where does the Word say Mary is "the mother of God"? The only time Mary is referred to as "mother" is is regards to Jesus the man - never Jesus as God.
Regarding Luke 1:43 - the word "Lord" in Greek kurios means master, not God, which would be theos.
I am not succumbing to the old Gnostic beliefs about the Lord. RCC doctrine does that just fine.
Why does RCC doctrine portray the pope as "Holy Father", in defiance of Matthew 23:9?
I suggest not feeding the troll. Sbrogden is clearly only interested in fighting for the sake of fighting, and has no interest in truth.
Sbrogden-- you are greatly in error. As a brother in Christ, I must warn you, your house is built upon sand.
If you would like some solid books that might give you a theological foundation, I'd be happy to suggest a few.
If you are uninterested in sincerely listening to others, then may God help you, because reason clearly can not.
Sbrogden, I think you just remain unconvinced. But you keep going to Catholic sites. And you keep responding. I have an hour off work:
1: You say "Mary is not the Mother of God" Here is what the RCC teaches: Jesus is a Person, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus assumed a human nature but did not in the process cease being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, nor did He become another person. Nor did He leave His personhood behind in Heaven when He was born a man -- He is a person who is has two natures: one human and one divine. Nor can He be split into two persons, or two halves joined, but He is one Person, two natures. Mary is the mother of the human nature of Jesus, which includes not just His physical body, but His whole person. She is the mother of the person Jesus, because He cannot be separated from His personhood. So because Mary is the mother of the person Jesus in His human nature, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who is God, she is the mother of God. That is all the statement "Mary is the Mother of God" means -- Jesus is God, Mary is His mother, Mary in this sense is the Mother of God. Jesus didn't quit being God when the Father gave him a human mother.
2. Sbrogden, you say: "All churches have error" and that you are currently in dispute with the elders of your church about something you perceive as being an error. Dear man, Sbrogden, what means do you use to assure yourself that you are not in error? You say you use Scripture. Who interprets?
Do you remember in Nehemiah 8:7-8 when Ezra the scribe read the book of the law to all the people and the Levites interpreted it for them:
" Also Jesh'ua, Bani, Sherebi'ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab'bethai, Hodi'ah, Ma-asei'ah, Keli'ta, Azari'ah, Jo'zabad, Hanan, Pelai'ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places.
And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading."
Do you remember Jesus making mention of the "seat of Moses?" Jesus honored that structure, as in apparent throughout the Gospels.
Then He established His won Church upon the apostles, who eventually anointed bishops to help them guide the Church as it grew. Jesus didn't leave this Church up to its own devices, nor did He leave her a democracy, but He promised that He would not leave the apostles orphans. John14:18 He promised to send them the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26), Who would lead them into all truth, not error; that is, He promised His Church inerrancy of Scriptural interpretation and doctrine. How else could He assure that Truth and correct teaching would prevail? His promise wasn't to make the apostles individually know all things, but to send them the Holy Spirit Who knows all things. He established His Church through which His Spirit could work, just as in the Old Testament God gave the Israelites a specific hierarchial structure, that gave the people the law and interpreted it to them. The Church which Jesus established still exists as the Roman Catholic Church, 2000 some years old, unchanged in Scriptural interpretation and official doctrine.
3.Sbrogden, you say the Roman Catholic Church "portrays the pope as 'Holy Father', in defiance of Matthew 23:9."
We recognize only one Father, God, who created us and redeemed us. The pope, bishops, and priests of the Church only are fathers in that they represent God's Fatherhood; they take their fatherhood from Him and outside of him they are not fathers or anything at all. Paul recognized this spiritual fatherhood when he addressed the Christians as "children" as in 1Cor.4:14 "... to admonish you as my beloved children." Note that Paul relates to his children as a spiritual father, admonishing them, which is precisely the role that the pope, bishops, and priests assume in the Church. We call them "Father" in recognition of God's fatherhood of us.
My lunchtime is over, Sbrogden. God bless.
I get amused here and other places as RCC watch dogs claim to know my motives, my intentions, etc. That's a hoot.
The twistedness of the RCC doctrine is a yoke that has been used to kill thousands of people over the years as the RCC tried to keep the Bible out of reach and continues to try to control everything on the planet.
Please read this page - http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm
The ignorance continues to be paraded.
Not to mention, the hubris that refuses to admit the possibility he could be wrong.
When, oh wise oracle of the human heart, have I refused to admit I may be wrong? Truth is, I've read and studied the Bible more in the past 10 years than in the previous 30 and have been convicted by the Word of God that I was wrong on myriad issues.
RCC doctrine is not the Word of God and it only serves to convince me that much of - not all of it - is wrong. It is, much, "man's religion".
When, oh wise oracle of the human heart, have I refused to admit I may be wrong?
When you continued to refuse to acknowledge the real reason Bibles were "locked up". You're so certain that the Catholic Church was trying to "keep it out of reach" so as to control everybody that you remain blind to the real reason, which has already been stated.
Truth is, I've read and studied the Bible more in the past 10 years than in the previous 30 and have been convicted by the Word of God that I was wrong on myriad issues.
Personal revelation, personal interpretation of Scripture, refusal to accept the guidance of men who were promised a paraclete to guide them.
But, yeah, the Catholic Church is a manmade religion.
"We recognize only one Father, God, who created us and redeemed us. The pope, bishops, and priests of the Church only are fathers in that they represent God's Fatherhood; they take their fatherhood from Him and outside of him they are not fathers or anything at all. Paul recognized this spiritual fatherhood when he addressed the Christians as "children" as in 1Cor.4:14 "... to admonish you as my beloved children." Note that Paul relates to his children as a spiritual father, admonishing them, which is precisely the role that the pope, bishops, and priests assume in the Church. We call them "Father" in recognition of God's fatherhood of us."
So you take a Scripture wherein an Apostle calls disciples children and use the inference of Paul's position to posit him and you against the clear command NOT to do that. To "recognize God's fatherhood" sounds a lot like idolatry to me.
Sbrogden,
I'm going to assume you're really not trolling. I would use the Socratic method, but you've already demonstrated you won't answer my direct questions.
Please read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/
..._Man_Father.asp
And then let's talk.
Please read it with an open mind, as oppposed to the "I already have all the answers!" approach you've taken thus far.
Then kneel down, say an our father (or 10), and then read it again. That is the best way any person can ever study something theological-- through prayer.
Yours in Christ,
-LCB
Thank you for the link. It is well written and not a screed. I agree with most of it, but for me, it breaks down with the role of "priest" being recognized as spiritual fathers. While one can be a father in the faith as the article notes, I do believe the Lord teaches that no one can take the role being in His place. And if one is redeemed in Christ, he needs no intercessor between himself and the Lord - the veil has been torn and each child of God has direct access to the Father through the Son. No earthly priest can stand between saint and God any more than a child can be saved by her earthly father's faith.
Sbrogden,
Now we're getting somewhere.
"While one can be a father in the faith as the article notes..."
Which is why priests are called Father. I don't want to sound rude, but if you are willing to 'sit down' and really dialogue with us, you may find that the RCC is very different from what you think it is.
Let's keep using this thread (I presume Thomas won't mind) to keep the dialogue going. Maybe we can take turns asking each other questions, so we both reach a better understanding of the other's position?
You wrote, "No earthly priest can stand between saint and God any more than a child can be saved by her earthly father's faith."
Ignoring the fact that scripture shows an earthly father's faith saving a child...
My question for you is this: why do you presume priests stand BETWEEN the saint and God? If priests stand between saint and God, then it seems to me that every pastor and minister out there would stand BETWEEN saint and God. Is it at least possible that priests are helpful, and not hurtful?
It's our belief that (at the very least), the priest's job is to help people draw closer to God. In fact, we believe that the priest makes God uniquely present for the saint in a way not ordinarily possible.
We base this on verses like, "And they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread" (because we believe the Eucharist is really Jesus, but maybe that's a topic for a different thread), and on verses like, "Whoever hears you hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me." In these ways the priest is helpful, and not a barrier.
In return, I'm happy to answer any questions you have. All I ask is that you are sincerely open to considering the answers. IN return, I promise you that I will be sincerely open to all your positions and replies.
Your brother in Christ,
-LCB
Commenting by HaloScan
