Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jesus was quite earthy. God created our bodies: He's not squeamish or prudish about them the way man can be. Shame came in with the Fall, after all. Either way, we're to partake of Him; and He must remain in us.
So there's no problem for you to think that you're eating God's flesh when we're told in His own word to no longer think of Him in the flesh?
This is why John calls Him the WORD in John 1, and this is why Peter would say that He alone has the WORDS of eternal life in John 6.. because He is the WORD made flesh and we DO feast on His word when we do remember Him in His death til He comes..
We don't EAT Him til He comes.. we REMEMBER Him in His death til He comes..
This is not an argument about dogmas that are missing from Scripture, however. Both of you are staking out your respective POVs on the basis of your understanding of Scripture. In fhansen's case, he disavows such reliance, but goes to it every time it's necessary to try to prove any doctrine.
Yes, as we do-and were in agreement that an authority is necessary as well. The problem is that they don't agree over what God's own word is saying!What a strange question. Without an authority, we have no bearings...but more than that, almost every last Christian denomination, out of thousands of them, does accept this one as God's own word!
No, the reason the CC doesnt have different interpretations is that shes resolved differences over the years based on Scripture and Tradition, the two complimenting each other, while relying on the HS that shes got it right, that shes kept true to the faith.That's not really up for grabs. YOUR point, however, is that we should still look elsewhere, and I wonder what conceivable argument you could have for suggesting that. What you've said is that not every one of us agrees on the meaning of every last part of Scripture (although we do agree on almost all that could be considered essential to our faith). But what is better?
Very well. Then your argument is purely sectarian. It is not an argument on behalf of Tradition, even though you put it that way every time Scripture is criticized.
The other upshot is that Scripture doesn't lack anything, but man does, and so he ends up following his own, sometimes faulty thinking/interpreting, anyway. Geez, maybe there's a need for the gift of infallibility after all?And that argument of yours is essentially the same one as advanced by the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Armstrongites, etc. etc. The upshot is that the Scriptures aren't lacking anything, but everyone should just follow whatever your own denomination says to believe, and for no reason other than that it says so.
Thanks again. My faith group was discussing that verse last Tuesday night.
But my question to you is, what dogmas are in the bible?
Maybe you can answer that question by asking yourself- what dogma is souldier missing? If you cant think of any then you must assume that my bible is sufficient to guide me in all truth. Is there some dogma that i am missing? Will the holy spirit not teach me all things if i keep the words of Christ and of Paul who Christ sent to teach me? What do you know that i do not? Anything? If not then why are we even discussing it? The answer is already there.
Is your belief that your bible is sufficient to guide you in all truth dogmatic? If so, where is that in the bible?
And your churches don't agree on what "Tradition" is saying, so there is no practical difference! And there is, therefore, no benefit or improvement by going to "Tradition."Yes, as we do-and we’re in agreement that an authority is necessary as well. The problem is that they don't agree over what God's own word is saying!
So....? How does that make Scripture defective? It doesn't.The other upshot is that Scripture doesn't lack anything, but man does, and so he ends up following his own, sometimes faulty thinking/interpreting, anyway.
It is indeed in the bible.
Jeremiah prophesied that God would put his laws in our minds and hearts. Jesus said if we love him then we would keep his words and then the holy spirit would teach us all things, and that seems to be a fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. Likewise John says if we keep what we heard in the beginning (the doctrine of Christ) then we need no teacher because the anointing will teach us all things. And thats what Christ promised, and what Jeremiah foretold. Jesus said His sheep know his voice and follow it, and again its saying the same thing.
Actually there is no where in the Bible were it says to follow the Bible alone and exclusively. The idea of Bible alone is a tradition of man, not from God
Partially because youll only accept Scriptural proof, but Ive appealed to the value of and the need for a historical legacy back to the beginnings as well, together with the striking theological similarities to the history of the east where tradition is likewise embraced, even after centuries of isolation from each other. But the Church has always used both Scripture, along with Tradition, to support her positions. In any case the CC recognizes and freely acknowledges that her understanding of the faith is from a twofold source, and not by Scripture alone, as many Protestants, including SS offshoots such as Armstrongites and JWs, receive theirs. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:In fhansen's case, he disavows such reliance, but goes to it every time it's necessary to try to prove any doctrine.
I find that a very weak justification for constantly pointing to Scripture while denouncing others for relying upon it. Whenever anyone wants to persuade someone else of a different POV, he introduces something that is NOT already in dispute, and you never seem to turn to legends or the musings of some old saint when trying to prove any doctrine. If that is what persuades you, it follows that you'd be showing the rest of us why it should persuade us also.Partially because you’ll only accept Scriptural proof,
You've appealed to past history, I agree, but not with much more than "it's always been believed--trust me--so you know it has to be so." That's just a claim; it has no substance unless you show that X is indeed what the church always and ever believed and then, that there is some reason why we should consider this to make any difference at all.but I’ve appealed to the value of and the need for a historical legacy back to the beginnings as well
And you are speaking of your own denomination, I assume. But we are not trying to outdo each other for "One true church denomination" here; we are speaking of what it is that contains God's will and intentions, regardless of one's affiliations.But the Church has always used both Scripture, along with Tradition, to support her positions.
That isn't the point, though. All of these operate from a sectarian perspective--"We are the only true church so whatever we decree IS the truth, period." That means that neither Scripture nor Tradition nor anything else is really what justifies such church bodies. They are self-justifying.In any case the CC recognizes and freely acknowledges that her understanding of the faith is from a twofold source, and not by Scripture alone, as many Protestants, including SS offshoots such as Armstrongites and JWs, receive their’s.
I honestly do not think they will ever understand verifiable orthodox ChristianityPartially because youll only accept Scriptural proof, but Ive appealed to the value of and the need for a historical legacy back to the beginnings as well, together with the striking theological similarities to the history of the east where tradition is likewise embraced, even after centuries of isolation from each other. But the Church has always used both Scripture, along with Tradition, to support her positions. In any case the CC recognizes and freely acknowledges that her understanding of the faith is from a twofold source, and not by Scripture alone, as many Protestants, including SS offshoots such as Armstrongites and JWs, receive theirs. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
I honestly do not think they will ever understand verifiable orthodox Christianity
but they will make fun of it because many can not fathom that Christianity is much more than the nowI honestly do not think they will ever understand verifiable orthodox Christianity
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?