Joe,
Once again you impress me with your understanding of Scripture and how it relates.
Thank you,
Fred
|
Joe,
Once again you impress me with your understanding of Scripture and how it relates.
Thank you,
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I disagree with you, and I believe in the power Our Father who is the spirit of truth. It is Our Father that shew all that was spoken by the disciples. This was shown by Christ in all that He spoke was of HIS Father.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come
Example the spirit of the Lord was with Philip:
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
What Luke has written is that they are before God, to hear all things that are commanded by God
Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Peter is speaking of truth that is percieved (the spirit of truth that is shew to him )
Act 10:34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons
It is written that Peter could not have spoken of these things in which he preached, but amazing enough it was the spirit of truth that shew him these things. That is why I included what was written. To tell you, it is not I that says this but the word of God.
Without the Comforter, they knew nothing! We know nothing without the Comforter. And I shall never deny the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of truth from the Father within me.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son
John is precisely saying in this paragraph what I am trying to point out less clearly, of course.
We have to abide by THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, as simple as that.
Gromitt82
Sndbay:
The logic presented here is like the logic of putting a screen door on a submarine then floating your conceptual vessel of liberal theology. No matter what’s said, the liquid that’s the essence of commonsense just pours through your arguments. This non-buoyant vessel will never float.
The example of Acts 8 proves the point that he "opened his mouth" is a literary form of accenting the importance of the message and the speaker. The Apostles Philip’s comments were extremely important to the Ethiopian eunuch, and to Christians only by extension of the importance of the lesson. But still, Philip “opened his mouth” to ‘preach’ what was already written in Isaiah and its relationship to Christ; not to write scripture. One degree of importance, another degree of importance of the speaker. However, Peter’s message was universal to all mankind. Both his message and the person making the statement, Peter, were important to the author. Thus Luke draws our attention, Peter “opened his mouth”. You're forcing your own opinion onto the author.
JoeT
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Follow man, or follow the word of God Christ Jesus? It is choice.
I rest in Christ the One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
sndbay,
I must agree with Joe and Gromitt82 on this.
Your scriptural logic appears to be faulty.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I agree with you sndbay, "In all these things we are more than conquers through Him that loved us." Rom 8:37
It seems that we have different schools of thought on this and it is interesting.
Different people see different things in different ways.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons that there are over 30,000 different denominations that keep we Christians from being united as Jesus wants us to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
By taking the Logos as 'a word' in the verse John 1:14 causes a problem. Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, before taking John 1:14 literal we should first read Galatians 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree),” Reading this in the same literal sense as you read John 1:14, then we've got to ask if Christ is cursed? Is it the intent of Paul to say that God's essence removed its glory and became cursed? Of course not! Rather, he took on the suffering of the curse so that man can be free of the Law. Likewise when “the Word was made “Flesh” God took on the flesh of man to become the Son of man so that we might become children of God.
The Logos is the term used to designate the “Word of God” who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The Logos didn't 'become' flesh or 'become' the word, but rather the essence of God, by conjoining God and Flesh, 'took on' Him in the form of ONE, Jesus Christ. Nothing is added, in “the Word was made flesh”, nothing was destroyed in the union, but rather God's essence infused with flesh. Though we count every word recorded in scripture as spoken by Christ, though we revere and set to memory every verse uttered by Christ, the verse John 1:14, Christ does not become the Bible – what a sacrilege this would be. (Cf. Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 11)
It's funny that the Second Epistle of John should be mentioned in connection the literal reading of John 1:14, because the Second Epistle of John was a Catholic letter meant for all Churches (universal) to warn against Docetic and Gnostic heresies. The Docetics believed that the Logos was an illusion; that Christ only seemed to be a man. The Gnostics believed that salvation was possessed by secretly transmitted knowledge regarding the mysteries of the universe in some kind of magic formula. John was warning against these heresies. In verse 9,”Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” John is simply stating that these heretical doctrines are not doctrine of Christ because they reject the Trinity, either the Father or the Son as being distinct Persons in the one Nature of God. This gets us back to 'orthodoxy' mentioned some posts ago. We keep the purity of our faith in the discipline of the intellect; a discipline of course requires an authority, right reasoning in faith or a purity of faith found in the Catholic Church.
JoeT
JoeT,
Once again I must agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
'Fred
And I conclude there is no different denominations in those that walk in the Spirit of truth. Because the perfect man (Eph 4:13) that is unity in the fulness of Christ Jesus, follows in ONE Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The Word of God in Christ Jesus, is the grace and truth. (John 1:14 John 1:17) Christ death on the cross beared record that scripture is true. (John 19:36)
I believe whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
If you find fault in my belief in Jesus, then you have judge what the Spirit of truth has revealed to me. And I have shown nothing other then my love for Christ Jesus, and for all brotheres and sisters.
Edit: adding this note of scripture (2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise)
1 Peter 2:21-22-23-24 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Does the truth of scripture says we continue to sin and live by unrighteoeusness?
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
~in Christ
I follow Jesus, because He is the only true living God. He did a wonderful thing for all of us, by dying on the cross for all our sins, and we are scott free when we believe in this amazing fact.
Besides, He helps me in my life, He is a shoulder to cry on, He gives me peace, I can trust Him with my life, He is there to carry me no matter what happens, He doesn't accuse me like my dad, He is not clueless like my mom... In all - He is my protector and friend!!
Now how about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
I believe whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
Would it be asking too much that you could write English forgetiing the grammar used in the 18th Century? Some foreigners might find it difficult to grasp the meaning of all these words.
This said, I gather in the above fragment you are saying that those who sin have no GOD or are not entitled to GOD's forgiveness. While those who abide by the doctrine of Christ had both the Father and the Son, and I suppose to Holy Spirit, too. And that by saying they have GOD they must not ever sin, because if they do they are immediately rejected by GOD.
If this what you are trying to say, I'm sorry to disagree.
And instead of quoting any Apostles I will quote Jesus Christ himself, who said in the Cross: Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing
Gromitt82
Gromitt82Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
It is scripture.
CompareQuote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. KJV
Most always I do advert back to scripture when I speak , especially in discussion of the Word of God. It is very natural to give heed or attention to the spirit of truth by written scripture. I find no difficulity in grasping the meaning. The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.
Sndbay
Maybe it would be helpful to explain what the “doctrine of Christ” is. Catholics look at doctrine as a guide, another word for catechism. Doctrine comes from the Latin meaning teaching. Perhaps it means something different to you?
1 Timothy 4:13, 16 NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 1 Timothy 4
1 Timothy 5:17 NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 1 Timothy 5
2 Timothy 4:2 NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 2 Timothy 4
JoeT
So are you saying that it is God's will that there are so many different and contradictory interpretations of scripture? Surely there is but One Truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
For example, is transubstantiation true ? Does the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ?
There are Christians who say yes and there are those who say no. Both believe that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. So who is correct and how can you decide?
Sndbay,
I am not judging your faith.
ONLY God can do that.
You believe as you do and I do believe as I do.
I see some Scripture differently than you do.
That's nothing new. It has gone on for many years particularly since the Protestants came into being.
For me I must go along with the authority of God in His Word and His Church that Jesus founded of the Rock called Peter.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Sndbay,Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
“Whoever transgresses[a] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9)
NEW KING JAMES VERSION.
I daresay that this is Scripture too and, certainly, adapted to the language spoken right now.
You may not find “any difficulty in grasping the meaning of the 1ST KING JAMES VERSION. Your mother language is probably English.
I find no difficulty in grasping the meaning of the NUEVA VERSIÓN INTERNACIONAL, in Spanish or of LA BIBLE DU SEMEUR, in French, or O LIVRO, in Portuguese, or LA PAROLA È VITA, in Italian. I also grasp most of the 1ST KING JAMES VERSION... ALL THE PRECEDING TEXTS ARE BIBLES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, AND THEREFORE VALID AND LEGITIMATE “SCRIPTURES”.
But you seem to forget that the original Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and later on, on Latin.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in English, and the Gospels – according to most scholars – were basically written in Greek. So I do not see why we should consider the kind of English used in the original KINF JAMES version of the Bible any BETTER than any other translation whether older or more modern.
I DO NOT BELIEVE the will of GOD has anything to do here.
GOD allowed Mankind to have and use many languages, and these languages have been undergoing modifications and corrections in accordance with the language spoken in the different epochs.
The KING JAMES VERSION was finished in 1611 (17th century) but that DOES NOT make it the ONLY ONE AUTHORIZED BY THE WILL OF GOD. It is just ANOTHER TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL BOOKS. and certainly is no better or truer than THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, FINISHED IN 1982.
As Elscarta has already pointed out the original text of the Scriptures was just one.That is, if Moses was the author (as many believe) of the Genesis he certainly did not write several versions. He wrote only one, surely inspired by GOD, and it is that very version the one that have suffered a number of translations, until our days.
This is just to say that if the O.T. was basically inspired by GOD and the N.T. is the collection or gathering of Jesus’ Message, it is highly unlikely that there have been many ORIGINAL versions. What has happened is that some men decided long ago that a certain translation was the right one while others determined the tru one was theirs. And this turned out to be the reason that justifies the existence of 8 Primary versions and of several hundreds of 2nd versions, each one pretending to be the exact translation of the original one, which is, of course, impossible.
So you are entitled to believe as you please, but please do not try to impose upon others your own beliefs as you were the only one in possession of the truth.
Gromitt82
This is a different thread discussion entirely. But I will say that it is all according to what your heart is willing to believe. That is why the heart is search by Christ. Men that follow man's doctrine as example in the teaching of scripture, are also exampled that God permitting the delusion of their ways or choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
It brings attention to Christ saying to follow Him and deny thyself. What is the willingness of heart ?
But this contradicts your previous postQuote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
How can you argue that men follow man's doctrine? There is no such thing if all interpretation is given from the Holy Spirit and is the will of God!Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
And if all interpretation is the will of God then you are saying that it is the will of God that some men hold false beliefs (delusion). God is the God of Truth not falsehood, it is Satan that is the father of all falsehood!
Look to the Word of God, search for wisdom that is the knowledge scripture offers. There is such a thing of man's doctrine for those who do not read, and instead depend upon others to read for them. All that was written was fulfilled in Christ for us to follow HIM. And Yes, Jesus told the disciple Peter to feed His sheep. And Christ promised Peter and the other disciples the Comforter would be sent to put them in rememberances of all they had been told by HIM. The causion is to watch what is being fed today. Is it indeed Christ's blood, which is the cup of the New Testament) (1 Corinthinas 11:25) and that we drink of that cup in rememberance of HIM. Or today are we being fed by the many false prophets that shall rise, and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:11)Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Question why someone might try to deceive us in thinking what is written would not be all the truth or not enough of the spirit of truth? Why would it be that all are not taught to read and search the Word of God, and told to depend upon it's truth.
Statement of Truth is that All that was written was given by the inspiration of God and HIS witnesses that were godly servants in doing HIS will.
Then also question why these deceiving many have changed the order of what was written?
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Gal 6:6-7-8 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 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.
Both Gromitt82 and elscarta have asked germane questions given that you suggested that the result of multiple interpretations of scripture is derived from the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity and that yours are correct and everybody else is wrong. I've asked the same question before, why is Catholic interpretation of Scripture different from yours. What makes it different based on your theories? Why is Catholic interpretation “man's doctrine” and your interpretation Divine? If they both come from the Holy Spirit why would God delude one and not the other? Why would God delude either, does God lie? Is Catholicism wrong in your estimation and what is the basis of your opinion? It would be very interesting if you would be candid.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
JoeT
Fanaticism is a dangerous trend (even a curse) as far as Religion is concerned. The Inquisition was a reflection of the fanaticism that flooded our Roman Catholic Church as of the 13th century and that was responsible for countless atrocities.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Jesus' message certainly discards any kind of fanaticism while He is preaching "love one another". " A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another (John 13:34).
I'm sorry to say so but I'm afraid our colleague tends to be somewhat "fanatic" in his/her remarks.
Gromitt82
True and in that God will be the judge of faulty worksQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
TrueQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
True and those difference can be discussed and disagreed upon without judgement, but by way of discernment.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
True you do Fred, and I follow the Rock that is Christ Jesus. The same spiritual Rock that is written of in scripture that all did drink and eat upon. The spiritaul Rock that is with us today and always.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
I hear the voice of Christ, and choice to follow HIM. I want to put my heart of love and trust in Christ.
By the mouth of our Lord, and Saviour Jesus Christ he tells us that he beheld Peter, and said in scripture thou shalt be call Cephas, which was said to be A stone.
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
There is no other Rock then Christ Jesus. Those that go through heavens gate shall sing the song of Moses (Revelation 15:3) The song of Moses is written of in (Deu 32) if anyone cares to read of it.
That is the difference between what we follow by choice
~in Christ
Interesting that you should call our attention to 1 Cor 10:1-4; St. Chrysostom writes passionately about these verses. The importance he places on the Font (Fountain) is that it spews forth the refreshing graces of Christ, “For as you eat the Lord's Body, so they the manna: and as you drink the Blood, so they water from a rock.” The Holy Table is set before you.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4
For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant.
Now this he said, implying that they were not very well instructed in these things. And what is this which you would not have us ignorant of?
That our fathers, says he, were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased.
And wherefore says he these things? To point out that as they were nothing profited by the enjoyment of so great a gift, so neither these by obtaining Baptism and partaking of spiritual Mysteries, except they go on and show forth a life worthy of this grace. Wherefore also he introduces the types both of Baptism and of the Mysteries.
But what is, They were baptized into Moses? Like as we, on our belief in Christ and His resurrection, are baptized, as being destined in our own persons to partake in the same mysteries; for, we are baptized, says he, for the dead, i.e., for our own bodies; even so they putting confidence in Moses, i.e., having seen him cross first, ventured also themselves into the waters. But because he wishes to bring the Type near the Truth; he speaks it not thus, but uses the terms of the Truth even concerning the Type.
Further: this was a symbol of the Font, and that which follows, of the Holy Table. For as you eat the Lord's Body, so they the manna: and as you drink the Blood, so they water from a rock. For though they were things of sense which were produced, yet were they spiritually exhibited, not according to the order of nature, but according to the gracious intention of the gift, and together with the body nourished also the soul, leading it unto faith. On this account, you see, touching the food he made no remark, for it was entirely different, not in mode only but in nature also; (for it was manna;) but respecting the drink, since the manner only of the supply was extraordinary and required proof, therefore having said that they drank the same spiritual drink, he added, for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them, and he subjoined, and the Rock was Christ. For it was not the nature of the rock which sent forth the water, (such is his meaning,) else would it as well have gushed out before this time: but another sort of Rock, a spiritual One, performed the whole, even Christ who was everywhere with them and wrought all the wonders. For on this account he said, that followed them.
Perceivest thou the wisdom of Paul, how in both cases he points cut Him as the Giver, and thereby brings the Type near to the Truth? For He who set those things before them, says he, the same also has prepared this our Table: and the same Person both brought them through the sea and you through Baptism; and before them set manna, but before you His Body and Blood.
4. As touching His gift then, such is the case: now let us observe also what follows, and consider, whether when they showed themselves unworthy of the gift, He spared them. Nay, this you can not say. Wherefore also he added, Howbeit with most of them God was not well-pleased; although He had honored them with so great honor. Yea, it profited them nothing, but most of them perished. The truth is, they all perished, but that he might not seem to prophesy total destruction to these also, therefore he said, most of them. And yet they were innumerable, but their number profited them nothing: and these were all so many tokens of love; but not even did this profit them, inasmuch as they did not themselves show forth the fruits of love.
Thus, since most men disbelieve the things said of hell, as not being present nor in sight; he alleges the things heretofore done as a proof that God does punish all who sin, even though He have bestowed innumerable benefits upon them: for if you disbelieve the things to come, so he speaks, yet surely the things that are past ye will not disbelieve. Consider, for example, how great benefits He bestowed on them: from Egypt and the slavery there He set them free, the sea He made their path, from heaven he brought down manna, from beneath He sent forth strange and marvellous fountains of waters; He was with them every where, doing wonders and fencing them in on every side: nevertheless since they showed forth nothing worthy of this gift, He spared them not, but destroyed them all. Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 23 CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 23 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)
Sndbay, you have skirted the main point in my post and instead have narrowed your answer to a minor detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
So I will rephrase my question to make it abundantly clear what I am asking.
How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depend upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means if as you believe
This is not a hypothetical situation but one that I find myself in with a good friend of mine.Quote:
The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.
God is Truth and yet according to you it is His Will that either my friend or me believes in a falsehood!
I think the answer can be found in what as become known as 'the ordinary language-school'.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
I am thinking in particular of Wittgenstein. Basically Wittgenstein abandoned his earlier works when he came to the realization that the search for a perfect language which accurately reflected the world could not be realized. We have no choice, we can only think in the language that we have available to us. If this language contains anomalies and is inconsistent then we are inconsistent with our interpretation of any given works.
To quote Wittgenstein,'Language is a labyrinth of paths. You approach from one side and know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and you no longer know your way'.
God has a message for us but he can only give it to us through language. Because language is far from perfect and because we are far from perfect when we wish to interpret language we often come up with different answers to the same question.
It is often the fault of language and not so much as the fault individuals which I am sure is the case here.
When I talked about the anomalies of language perhaps I should have included an example.
Let us look at this example.
'He was destined to pick up an infection while working there'
Does this mean:-
(A) Because of his disregard for hygiene in general he was destined to pick up an infection.
(B) He is usually careful with matters of hygiene, but because of circumstances beyond his control he was destined to pick up an infection.
Which is correct? Answer If I don't provide you with any more information then you can argue till the cows come home.
We can also look at it this way as well.
Even though things can come to people through religious insight, they still have to put it into language. In other words we/they still have to 'walk the labyrinth of language paths'
Tut,
That was very interesting. Thanks.
Joe Thanks much for posting that.
Fred
I think that ‘Wise Tut’ missed this by a mile. Language is far from the cause, but rather the presence of convoluted language is the symptom of the H1N1 of faith. It’s a designer virus attacking "right reasoning" since its introduction by an errant monk who started mass production in 1520. It’s defined by Catholics as liberalism; somewhat similar to the political variant. Liberalism holds, as a right, emancipation of Divine Authority and sovereignty in all sectors of life that control and judge all matters. To satisfy the liberal, God must conform His will to that of man’s. This is because liberalism true authority resides in the interior of the individual with the power to shut out God’s creation found on the outside. The philosophy proposes that "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part, and perhaps in some cases without realizing it, liberalism denies God with this autonomous freedom which is in conflict with the Church. Once completely overtaken by the disease, the individual finds no ‘right’, no ‘wrong’; only that which warms the interior, what feels good becomes good.Quote:
How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depend upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means.
An autonomous authority requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God’s will. As such Scriptures become subjective to the individual and different for each individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "one religion is as good as another." Faith becomes a social construct based on whether it feels right, changing from time to time depending on expediency. Discipline in faith is exercised less and less, and becomes weedy with passing time until all discipline in right reasoning is rejected. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn from autonomous intellectual lack guidance and authority and as such judgments become rationalizations, without a foundation in an absolute truth that only the Catechism brings. Thus it can be said that liberalism becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”
Like viruses found in nature, there is no natural immunity, the body merely becomes accustom to invading profanation. Each variant of liberalism mutates from simple schismatic sects to complex variants completely void of any vestige of Christianity. There is however a treatment facility, a Divine hospice, the Catholic faith.
JoeT
JoeT,
You have made an excellent point.
And it is why I am an orthodox Catholic.
But politically I am somewhat of a liberal but mostly a moderate.
My Christianity insists that a laborer is worth his wages, that a hungry person needs to eat, that a homeless person need shelter and those are called liberal politiacally.
But to me they are of Christian roots.
As an orthodox Catholic I believe what The Church Jesus founded on the rock called Peter is the true Church and as the bible says the source and foundation of the truth.
So therefore what it officially teaches is the truth and all of that is based on Holy Scripture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Hello Joe T.
When you say,'Language is far from the cause, but rather the presence of a convoluted language... "
Wittgenstein is saying that all language is convoluted. English is a piecemeal language made up of many different languages that evolved over time. Like all languages it contains anomalies and for some of the time is inconsistent . There is no such thing as a 'pure language'.
I am not denying that God knows what he wants to say. But even if God revealed to someone exactly what he wanted all it takes is someone like , 'an errant monk' , to misinterpret the message. Why? (A) because he deliberately set about to do so. (B) because that's what language is all about.
Lets look at (A) and (B) in light of the core question."How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depending upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means?"
In this case I think we can eliminate (A). I am happy to blame language for the problem. From your point of view who has the correct interpretation?. Elscarta or his friend? Assuming they have good intentions which I am sure they have.
No the promise is if you abide in HIM and HIS word, He will abide in you.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
I am positive Christ knows what is in your heart and what is in your friend's heart.
As scripture says what a man soweth, that shall he also reap. You can see results of that on this forum. Mankind have their hearts set to follow who they have chosen. No one knowns that individual heart better then Christ. I believe Christ knowns the heart of each, better then man himself .
As for me, I am willing to sow with the Word of God, and I do pray to be all He created me to be. My heart trust and believes in Christ Jesus. That He is the shepherd and bishop of my soul. I pray that God will give me the courage and strength to always remain true to HIS WIll. And I believe that is HIS Will for me as well. In the name of Jesus, in which I believe is the conquering name in power over all evil, and is the two edged sword of truth, evil can and will bow down and flee from us. So Our Father's will is done on earth as it is in heaven.
Christ searches the hearts of those that call upon HIM. The spiritual truth is that each are given according to the measure of HIS will.
John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
There is alot of truth to what you have said. and I am sure we could take one verse of scripture and find each individual can come to a different conclusion. And others will just give what they have been told or taught it was to mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
What I trust as being true, is that you can not conclude by one verse of words what is being said. You have to go outside the box of that one verse and obtain all that is being spoken. Plus there is so much more knowledge to be found by the entire volume of the book, and it would be difficult not to include that knowledge in the conclusion.
I offer a verse in the King James Version from the book of Matthew. .
Let's ask everyone their own understanding of this verse?
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Plus this remain important to the thread question.
Sndbay once again you skirt around the question. None of what you wrote answers my question at all. Are you deliberately trying to avoid answering the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Since you appear to be unable to give a question a simple straight forward answer, I will break down my question into a series of statements. For each statement I would like you to simply indicate whether you agree or disagree with it. As in one of my previous posts I will use transubstantiation solely as an example of a concept in the Bible that has been understood in two opposing ways. I am not interested, in this post, in which of the two opposing views is true.
1. God is Truth.
2. Satan is the father of all falsehood.
3. Transubstantiation is either true or it is not.
4. If transubstantiation is true then those who believe it is not true believe in a falsehood.
5. If transubstantiation is false then those who believe it is true believe in a falsehood.
6. Those who believe in the falsehood regarding transubstantiation, do so because of Satan, not because God wills them to believe in this falsehood.
Once I have your responses to the above statements I will continue with the remainder of my statements.
God is Righteousness, the Spirit of truthQuote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Satan is of sin from the beginning, those who sin are of satanQuote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
The conversion of one substance into another, yet their appearances remain the same. Would be a form of trickery, that would be performed as magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Or can not be decreased by what is not showing in appearanceQuote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
They are decreased and believe what they have been told and not in what appears the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Individual election of choice, to disagree or agree (Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices.)Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Your question was:Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Free will choice with this choice referred by ONE Faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Everyone won't always have the same exact understanding, although the source is in this case the volume of one Book, the Bible. Not one verse but all verses. The free will choice will vary because of the differences in surrounding influences. However we can rest in knowing Christ understands, give mercy, and we have HIS love. And Christ will aid each individual in accordance to HIS will, and the heart of each individual.
Scripture tells us some are dull of hearing, and some just are not yet of full age having reason of use in their senses that exercise discernment of right and wrong.
We probably agree on many more things than we disagree on. I would characterize my political views as conservative. And, you couldn't guess? You must admit this is somewhat rare among Catholics. Of course labor should be paid all the market can bear, the hungry feed and the homeless sheltered. These concerns for our follow countrymen are not exclusively liberal; rather they've been hijacked by the political left as tools to move towards socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
You know I'm orthodox Catholic; in fact I'm sure many here would say rabidly orthodox (if there could be such a thing). And as such I can only agree that reasoning within the discipline of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit who found our faith in the harmonious agreement between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.
And, I've been meaning to say for some time that I do value your opinions. I think we see things much alike.
JoeT
I can’t agree with you, Tut. What I was trying to say is that many use convoluted language to hide their true motives, and their true meaning. They rationalize True and faith for their own reasons and in doing so will use misleading or inconstant language as cover. Thus, in your ‘A or B’ scenario I would pick A in the case of differing beliefs. I do think Catholic theology was deliberately misinterpreted by the ‘errant monk’ – and likely for political reasons as opposed to theological reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I don’t disagree that language is imperfect and often cumbersome (especially in the written form). But, I don’t find it to be the cause for two different opinions of the same verse. This is the false argument that holds that all Christians, no matter what denomination, believe the same thing, only its expressed differently. This isn’t true. There are many fundamental differences.
JoeT
Sndbay, you appear to lack the ability to understand a simple request and to give simple answers. In my previous post I specifically asked you to state whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
I expected below each statement a single word. Agree or Disagree.
1. God is Truth.
I'll assume this means that you agree.Quote:
God is Righteousness, the Spirit of truth
2. Satan is the father of all falsehood.
Again I'll assume that this means you agree.Quote:
Satan is of sin from the beginning, those who sin are of satan
As for the rest of the statements your responses give no indication as to whether you agree or disagree with them.
3. Transubstantiation is either true or it is not.
4. If transubstantiation is true then those who believe it is not true believe in a falsehood.Quote:
The conversion of one substance into another, yet their appearances remain the same. Would be a form of trickery, that would be performed as magic.
5. If transubstantiation is false then those who believe it is true believe in a falsehood.Quote:
Or can not be decreased by what is not showing in appearance
6. Those who believe in the falsehood regarding transubstantiation, do so because of Satan, not because God wills them to believe in this falsehood.Quote:
They are decreased and believe what they have been told and not in what appears the same
Here is a simple passage from the Bible for you to think about in light of the fact that my previous post asked you for a simple agree or disagree, that is a simple yes or no answer to each of the statements.Quote:
Individual election of choice, to disagree or agree (Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices.)
Matthew 5:37 (King James Version)
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Hello Joe T,
When it comes down to it we generally agree on many points.
I may have created some confusion because I didn't put forward Wittgenstein's position very well. I suggested that language was the problem. While language is a problem Wittgenstein would say the way we use language is a bigger problem.
I think it comes down to what is know as ,'private language' versus 'public language'. By private language he means a language which is only understood by the person using it. An example might be the small child who has made up words to represent certain objects or things. As an adult we can make an educated guess as to what they are getting at.
Private language and public language is still the subject of much debate even today.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 PM. |