Catholic?

[Major1]

You mean confirms ti what YOU say it says.

May the Lord bless you Mr. Camper.

 

[concretecamper]

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knoweth the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betaketh himself to Him. For the saying, “Thou knowest all things,” meaneth, “things present, and things to come.” Seest thou how he had become better and more sober, being no more self-willed, or contradicting? For on this account he was troubled, “lest perchance I think that I love, and love not, as before when I thought and affirmed much, yet I was convicted at last.” But Jesus asketh him the third time, and the third time giveth him the same injunction, to show at what a price He setteth the care of His own sheep, and that this especially is a sign of love towards Him.

Yes, Peter was a weak person. Goes to show what the Holy Spirt can do when you are open to Him.

 

[Albion]

I'm not arguing that that led to changes in books that were chosen. Rather, they were chosen over others based on authority and doctrinal views, among others.

All right, but then there is no argument to be made that the process itself is what makes the books what they are.

 

[Major1]

Before you dare to make this challenge, YOU must prove that scripture says all matters of faith must be in the bible. You were asked this question before and refused to answer. Here is your chance.

Nope...….Challenge has already been asked.

The ONLY reason you would may the comment you just made is that you already know that there is NO Biblical ground to stand on to support those issues asked.

Then of course there is the fact that no matter what is said or shown to you, you do not have the ability to discuss it or accept it. So why the trouble to show you?

However I will say to you that -
The truth that there is one God is a matter of FAITH.

The truth that the Bible is God's revelation to man is a matter of faith.

The truth that Jesus is our sin sacrifice is a matter of FAITH.

The truth that there is one way to worship God is a matter of FAITH.

The truth that names are important is a matter of faith.

The truth that God has a plan of salvation is a matter of faith.

The truth that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved is a matter of FAITH.

As I answered your question when you asked by saying that I do not have to PROVE anything to anyone I say that yet again to you. What I have to do is believe and accept the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Major1]

So your logic is that the OT was given to us by the Jews (His Old Covenant People) but there is no way the NT was given to us by His Church (New Covanent People.)

Ok then

Logic has nothing to do with correct exegesis and Bible study.

The answer to your question is NO. The Church did not give us the New Testament.

The real facts are that the Old Testament is actually a Jewish book, written by Jews (with the possible exception of Genesis) under the inspiration of God, to proclaim God's name to all mankind.

It should also be noted that the New Testament is written entirely by Jews as well. In fact, Christianity is inherently Jewish and was begun by all Jews.

Acts 17:11...……...
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

 

[Major1]

You mean confirms to what YOU say it says....or what Pastor Billy Bob says it means...if of course you agree with what Billy Bob says, if not, start your own denomination.

God bless you Mr. Camper. I am just not going to keep responding such comments.

Your discussion style leans more to sarcasm than it does to fact finding or truth telling.

 

[Albion]

It's my understanding that the founder of your Anglican Church, King Henry VIII, murdered his wife because she didn't bear him a son. Where is such behaviour authorized in the Bible?

You are probably not willing to hear it, but let me correct that old myth.

Henry did not found a new church. He was a Catholic to his dying day, and the church in Britain was at that time about 1400 years old. This is quite different from the Lutheran experience which was really a start-up situation.

The churches remained as houses of worship, as before Henry came along. The clergy, validly ordained in Apostolic Succession, remained in the pulpits, etc. The only thing that really changed was that the church in England reverted to the independent status it had until the 13th century, which is not a lot different from some national churches that the Vatican recognizes today even though she does not control them.

In 1571, the Papacy finally concluded that England was a lost cause and broke fellowship, asking those Englishmen who still favored a Pope to leave their churches and start new ones (which is why we have Roman Catholic churches in England today, even though there is a national Catholic church as well--the Church of England).

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is and always has been the question...……...what does a person accept--
The Bible as the Word of God which is to be followed or...…..
The Pope and the Church is to be followed.

I do not see a result of that question.

There ARE two totally opposed religions at work here in this particular thread. And I'm speaking just of this particular thread here, nothing more.

One religion founded by Jesus, with apostles hand picked by Him, confirmed in the Spirit, persecuted by empire but spread through the world with the teaching of the successors to the apostles, and the daily prayers.

And the other formed in rebellion, hateful of the first, with a central dogma specifically designed to reject the authority of the successors of the apostles to teach, one where any wayward doctrines are tolerable as long as hatred of the Catholic Church is observed.

I'm tired of it. It is so typical. So old. So boring. So wasteful. See how they love one another?

You put Bible and pope up against each other as two poles. Never mind when I prayed the morning prayers of the Liturgy of the Hours this morning I read Psalm 37, Hosea 10, and part of Luke 1. That the readings for mass today I heard were Genesis 22, Psalm 115, and Matthew 9. That evening prayer will send me to Psalm 34, Galatians 5, and back to the rest of Luke 1. And not any reading by any pope at all. Never mind any of that. You have set it all up that since I am Catholic I do not read the Bible, which is not the Word of God, which is not to be followed.

Do you see why my reaction to all of you is 'typical'?

 

[chevyontheriver]

You are probably not willing to hear it, but let me correct that old myth.

Henry did not found a new church. He was a Catholic to his dying day, and the church in Britain was at that time about 1400 years old. This is quite different from the Lutheran experience which was really a start-up situation.

The churches remained as houses of worship, as before Henry came along. The clergy, validly ordained in Apostolic Succession, remained in the pulpits, etc. The only thing that really changed was that the church in England reverted to the independent status it had until the 13th century, which is not a lot different from some national churches that the Vatican recognizes today even though she does not control them.

In 1571, the Papacy finally concluded that England was a lost cause and broke fellowship, asking those Englishmen who still favored a Pope to leave their churches and start new ones (which is why we have Roman Catholic churches in England today, even though there is a national Catholic church as well--the Church of England).

Did anyone ever tell that to Thomas More and bishop John Fisher?

 

[Albion]

Nothing is to be gained simply by reciting the false history that one denomination or another teaches its people in order to secure their loyalty to the organization.

Its talking to oneself when such stuff is posted, and that's the same whether the tale is about Jesus founding the Roman Catholic Church as his one and only, Joseph Smith being led by an angel to dig up golden plates that are a lost Bible, Jesus coming back to Earth invisibly in the 1740s, or the whole church having gone apostate in the first century because the last Apostle died.

 

[zippy2006]

Nothing is to be gained simply by reciting the false history that one denomination or another teaches its people in order to secure their loyalty to the organization.

In which case we can safely disregard your post here.

 

[Tigger45]

You're reading it out of context. Paul is referring to the OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter - 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19-20. Furthermore, Paul writes elsewhere that the oral teachings of the apostles are on a par with the written word - 1Thess 2:13; 2Thess 2:15, 3:6.

The oral teaching were on par with the scriptures because they never went beyond what was written. Hence St Paul ties it all together in a nice little bow.

 

[Albion]

In which case we can safely disregard your post here.

You maybe. You can almost always safely disregard the facts of history, if that makes you feel more secure in your current church membership. But I was answering someone else who at least presented the phony history and asked me a question about the history.

 

[zippy2006]

You maybe. You can almost always safely disregard the facts of history, if that makes you feel more secure in your current church membership. But I was answering someone else who at least presented the phony history and asked me a question about the history.

Right: because if you can't establish something on the basis of fact and source you just resort to ad hominem, right? It's a cute strategy, akin to Obama's constant assertions that he would be shown to be "On the right side of history!" Mantras such as these are useful for those who are too lazy to do their homework.

By the way, their question was about the moral nature of Henry's act. You completely avoided it.

 

[Albion]

Right: because if you can't establish something on the basis of fact and source you just resort to ad hominem, right?

There was nothing ad hominum about the specific historical information given in that post. LOL

 

[zippy2006]

There was nothing ad hominum about the specific historical information given in that post. LOL

Your post here is standard ad hominem. "He is just saying that because he is insecure."

 

[chevyontheriver]

In which case we can safely disregard your post here.

He said something in the post you responded to that was true and even profound. And you yank his chain for it? And expect him not to react like someone who just had his chain yanked? I had hoped, naively, that a corner might have been turned when he said:

Nothing is to be gained simply by reciting the false history that one denomination or another teaches its people in order to secure their loyalty to the organization.

Its talking to oneself when such stuff is posted, ...

There is a lot of false history and uninformed nonsense bandied about in this thread. For example, if I were to reconstruct a 'history' of the Catholic Church from things written here by the anti-Catholics, it would be the strangest parody ever. We should be trying to go beyond unhistorical and pseudo-historical to actual historical. Not that we can, but we should try, they should try, aw it's a pipedream anyway. Again I say "Typical'.

 

[zippy2006]

He said something in the post you responded to that was true and even profound.

It was just ad hominem. "They say what they say because they're insecure. Listen to me instead. I'm not insecure."

You don't elevate conversation by flinging ad hominem fallacies. If the quality of the content is sub par then you produce higher quality content, presumably something that comes from an academic source.

 

[Albion]

There is a lot of false history and uninformed nonsense bandied about in this thread. For example, if I were to reconstruct a 'history' of the Catholic Church from things written here by the anti-Catholics, it would be the strangest parody ever.

Well, the anti-Anglicans are not to be overlooked, although I am not going to hold my breath waiting for any Catholic to say that Anglican Bashing isn't a good thing.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It was just ad hominem. "They say what they say because they're insecure. Listen to me instead. I'm not insecure."

Perhaps. I'm not privy to any deeper motivations. And I'm not going to even speculate. What was written was good, or at least could be taken in a good way. A needed way. That is not an endorsement of any other post by that poster.

He did say "Its talking to oneself when such stuff is posted, ..." and most of this thread has been talking to oneself while attacking each other. Cor ad cor Loquitur, but not in this thread. Yes, it's a way of praying, but also a way of dialogue. Here, in this thread is is attack and parry, counterattack and parry, but the fighters are more zealous than disciplined, sloppy more than skilled, and many seem to be out for blood. It's a Monty Python parody of fencing. How are we, all of us bought by the blood of Jesus, speaking to hearts in this thread?