 |
Tj3,
The Catholic Church understand far more than you ever will simply because you are not a knowledgeable member of it.
I was once like you, a protester of the Catholic, but once I started to understand it I decided to understand more and studied it from a positive outlook rather than a closed mind. I became a Catholic.
I firmly believe that anyone who understands the Catholic Church and its teachings well will become a Catholic and never leave it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The Apostles before your denomination understood more yet. But I note that your argument is an ad hominem argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
IF you really understood the Catholic Church you would know that Christ's apostles were the first bishops of The Catholic Church and that is was not a denomination or considered to be a denomination until after Luther.
History and the Bible affirm that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Just because you say it does not make it so, nor is it compelling, especially not when I have read what history and the Bible have to say.
Tj3,
I said what I said and I'll stand by that.
So let's get back to the topic.
OK?
Fred
I agree. You should get back on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
And where in Scripture do you find the words "homoousios", "hypostasis", and "prosopon" applied to the Trinity? Where in Scripture do you find an explanation of the eternal ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father? Where in Scripture do you find the distinction between the Spirit's ekporeusis from the Father and the Spirit's proienai from the Father explained?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Right, so you understand Greek better than all the early Church Fathers who were native speakers of the Greek of the NT? You, who don't know Greek. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The priesthood of the Temple was superceded by the priesthood of the New Covenant, that's true. It is also true that Christ is the High Priest. It doesn't follow from this that there is anything wrong with a ministerial priesthood. In fact, the only early Christians that I can think of who rejected a ministerial priesthood were the Gnostics. (Again, we find you circulating warmed over Gnosticism and presenting it as some kind of authentic primitive Christianity). Or are you a Montanist: The Montanists also took a deflationary attitude toward the ordained priesthood. Well, sort of.
Once again, as with your bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about the origins of the Catholic Church, we find in your posts evidence of a profoundly deficient knowledge of the history of Christianity. This would be fine, but for the fact that you are so strident and persistent in advancing these unwarranted claims. There is simply too much documentary evidence of an ordained, ministerial, priesthood from the early centuries of Christianity to take at face value your claims that there is something illegitimate about it. The priesthood--the sort of priesthood that one finds today in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism--predates the canon of the NT itself.
It is clearly important to you to advance your claims about this "denomination" or that (although, so far I've only seen you press this in the case of Catholicism--I wonder why), but we've all recently seen you demonstrate your inability to make anything resembling a plausible case for these claims. It really would serve your interests to spend some time studying the work of serious historians (I gave you the names of a bunch of them on another thread recently) and the writing of the early Fathers (esp. Ignatius of Antioch). Doing so might help you to give your claims at least the veneer of plausibility. As it is, you just don't seem to have much of a clue about what was happening in Christianity from the late first century on.
I find it interesting that you claim an unqiue translation of the word "presbuteros".Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Circular reasoning. You tramslate presbuteros as "priest" because you assume a NT priesthood, because it is necessary to support your denomination's theological system.Quote:
The priesthood of the Temple was superceded by the priesthood of the New Covenant, that's true.
Circular reasoning - you assume that you are right, so you use abusive and demeaning comments against anyone who disagrees with you. Not a compelling approach.Quote:
Once again, as with your bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about the origins of the Catholic Church, we find in your posts evidence of a profoundly deficient knowledge of the history of Christianity.
Perhaps we could have a more value-added discussion when you can bring yoursefl to treat others who disagree with you with some respect.
Can you see the skills of pride? or are you asleep?
Gal6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
*****************
Speak only Truth:
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I don't understand who are you aiming your comments at? And how are we to interpret this? Is this a good comment or bad comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
JoeT
I didn't propose any translation of "presbuteros". I did, however, say that better translations transliterate it rather than translating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Nope, nothing circular. Again, I didn't translate "presbuteros". I did point out in one of my posts that "presbuteros" is a word used in the NT that can mean priest. And it can--it is used this way outside the New Testament, by both pagan and early Christian writers.Quote:
Circular reasoning. You tramslate presbuteros as "priest" because you assume a NT priesthood, because it is necessary to support your denomination's theological system.
Nope, nothing demeaning either (don't be so thin skinned). Just pointing out that despite the great many opportunities that have been afforded you, you have yet to make anything remotely resembling a plausible case for your revisionist history of early Christianity. If you're going to continue to trot out your unsubstantiated claims about "denominations" you're just going to invite challenges. Particularly when you make demeaning remarks about the faith of others.Quote:
Circular reasoning - you assume that you are right, so you use abusive and demeaning comments against anyone who disagrees with you. Not a compelling approach.
Again, "value-added" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. And I've had plenty of respectful disagreements here. You're the one who seems to cry foul whenever someone points out that your claims are specious. Take my advice: Read some good historians and some Church Fathers. That will help you avoid the specious arguments that cause you so much grief. For instance: You should know by now that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't Biblical. The terms (homoousious, hypostasis, prosopon, etc.) are not terms that occur in the Bible; neither is the ekporeusis, etc. of the Spirit from the Father explained in the Bible. That's why you haven't been able to supply verse citations in response to my earlier query. If you were to moderate your claims, you might find yourself being challenged less often by others. You might also want to ease back on the denominations stuff, while you're at it, since you haven't anything to support your claims and those claims are often rather demeaning of the religious beliefs of others who read these discussions.Quote:
Perhaps we could have a more value-added discussion when you can bring yoursefl to treat others who disagree with you with some respect.
The fact remains, presbuteros does NOT mean priest. No matter long long you make your posts, no matter how many put-downs you post against those who disagree, you cannot change that reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I have debated the Biblical basis of the trinity with Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, pseudo-intellectuals, and others who have tried this same argument, but a couple of things that trip up this approach. The first is that the majority of the Bible was penned in Hebrew, not Greek, and second God is not restricted by the words that men insist that He uses. Nonetheless, scripture presents the trinity as clearly as any doctrine. Often those who oppose the Biblical basis for the trinity focus on such approaches such as the words, while ignoring the content of scripture itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I am surprised at a person professing to be a Catholic arguing against the Biblical basis for the trinity. Many of your fellow professing Catholics have stood with me in defending the Biblical basis of the trinity.
The comment is The Word of God.. His Truth telling us all that it is "The Spirit" that can be sown in any who accept, and hear His Truth, and from that Truth each reap everlasting life.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
The first to teach all people forever, and anoint each... is the Spirit. God reveals unto who he chooses. To lie, and say this is not true is to mock God.
Gal6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Note: ye need not that any man teach you
Because the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God's Words speaks the Truth:
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God's Word of Truth!
Jeremiah 9:4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
Jeremiah 9:5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, [and] weary themselves to commit iniquity.
Speak only Truth.. The Word of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
So, who lied? …
JoeT
Akoue,
You gave some good advice to Tj3.
I hope he takes it.
Fred
This discussion went from all believers are priests, to the term "ministerial priests. And then there are the episkopoi, bishops, and diaconate.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
#7 posting by Akoue: While it is true that Christ is the High Priest of the Church, this in no way militates against an ordained priesthood, established and expanded through the laying on of hands.
On to the Trinity, and the fact is the term is not in the scripture.
#9 posted by Tj3: Presbuteros is more properly translated as "elder". You'd be hard pressed to find a translation of the Bible translating presbuteros as priest other than Bible specific to Catholic denominations.
From posting # 2 from Tj3 thr posting # 5 by DeMaria, and #6 also: everyone agreed that believers are priests . So why would it be hard pressed to think of an elder as a priest, unless of course you think elers are not believers.
My point is that with this entire discussion, the reality still remain that God is above all.
And so all of this is least of importance, and because it is least important, in the end we are told the last will be first...
Man can get so puffed up in pridefullness towards someone other then what is reality. In doing so they mock God...
There is only "One" of importance written in scripture ( John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)
As is written: Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Can it be seen and heard in scripture, how God tells us man is least?
That man, is only seen in his puffed up pride, and foolishness to think he is more then what he actually is? YES I know it does..
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God's Word of Truth!
Jeremiah 9:4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
Jeremiah 9:5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, [and] weary themselves to commit iniquity.
~Trust in God
sndbay,
I think we all agree that God IS above all and the Jesus IS THE high priest of all.
But as others have here said true Christians are priests and so are the Christian elders.
Some are ordained as the bible tells us by laying on of the hands.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
But it does NOT follow that anyone but Jesus is a priest over over others. The office of a priest is to be a bridge between man and God, and scripture is clear that there is only one mediator between man and God and that is Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The reason that there is a priesthood of believers is that we are each able to come directly before God ourselves without needing to got to another priest. That in and of itself puts the rest the belief in the need of priests in the church.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM. |