dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.
That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?
|
dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.
That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?
Please give the complete context. Did he say this to you? (I read back in the thread, but couldn't find this.)Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Last line of his post#120Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by donn450
Thanks, donn450, for pinpointing its location for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Well, Dave certainly knows what he's talking about. I wouldn't argue Bible history with him! I suspect his "you" is generic. And you certainly weren't snide or on the attack (a soupçon of sarcasm there).
Not an attack. Advice. If you had checked out my profile, or my website, or both, you would have known my thoughts about the Old Testament. That's why I put them out there like that, so I don't have to keep repeating myself *click* repeating myself *click* repeating myself *clunk* thanks, I needed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
And I find it amusing that you are now griping about "snide comments" in light of the following:
Quote:
You claim to believe in the whole bible, but yet you claim to NOT believe in the rapture. So which is it? The bible, or the teachings of the RCC as the current pope chooses to interpret it?
You NEVER believed as I do! If you had you would know and follow Christ instead of the pope
Quote:
Could you please explain to the rest of that are not as enlightened as you claim to be where you get this theory?
Quote:
Book by WHO? Smart mouth!
Pot and kettle, my friend.Quote:
I suspect by your comments that you are another RCC convert
And I haven't been shown to be wrong yet.
Dave,
I don't understand some of your last comments.
The complete Bible (St. Joseph ver.) is read to the Church populace at Mass. The Church uses a three year cycle to do this. The cycles are "A", "B" and "C".
The Pope does not render interpretations on the Bible. The Pope is only under the seal of infallibility with respect to matters of Faith and Dogma.
With the RCC it is not a matter of the Bible or the Teachings of the Church. It is a matter of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC.
Where are you getting this information?
If you are going to try to dismiss or trash our Faith, I'm curious as to why? What has the RCC done to you that is so egregious?
Uhhhh, run that by me again? I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I'm one of the folks who's been (more or less) defending the RCC.Quote:
Originally Posted by donf
Then my sincere apologies.
Just for completeness I 'm appending the RCC's definition for "Ex Cathedra"
Ex Cathedra
Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
Again, I do apologize for picking on you. I must have gotten out of sync with all the cut-outs..
And that has occurred only twice?Quote:
Originally Posted by donf
The next one will be priests allowed to marry? Would that be an "ex cathedra" statement, or could the Pope merely make some kind of new rule?
P.S. Hmmm. We're wandering away from the OP.
WG -
You have to know that I'll never have anything to do with that decision. And I truly doubt that I will be consulted. Me, I've been married to the same Lady for 45 years and there are two lifeforms that I have no concept of, Single which I have heard about and "Celibate" which I missed the boat on some 45 years ago.
You do know that historically there were married RCC Priests and that currently there are married priests, don't you?
Currently, Priests that convert to RCC, I think Anglican Priests, but I can very well be wrong if they are married stay that way until the ole, "Death do us part."
And no, I do not know of any RCC hit squads going around and making widowers. <That's just a chuckle>.
If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.
Yup, Anglican and also converts from Protestant denominations.Quote:
Originally Posted by donf
My dad, who was doing his vicarage year in Idaho when he met my mom (a member of his pastor-uncle's church), told my mom when he asked her to marry him that God and the Church would always come first, and second would be she and any children they would have. And that's how it was.
I'm always ready for a chuckle. Is the Tribulation in it? (just trying to stay on task... )Quote:
If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.
What are you waiting for?Quote:
Originally Posted by donf
While we are waiting here's one
Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. "What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? " the one asked.
The second replied, "Well, they were both founded by Spaniards -- St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy -- the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants."
"What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?"
"Met any Albigensians lately?"
Here's one my dad told me:
Two Irish Catholics, Pat and Mike, were sitting by the road outside the local house of ill repute, chatting. They saw the local Protestant minister come walking up the road. Pat said, "Now there's a good man." Mike agreed, "Aye. I don't believe the same things he does, but he's a good man all right." The minister turned and entered the house. Both men were horrified. "Oh, Mike!" Pat exclaimed. "How terrible such a good man should fall like that!" Mike nodded, fighting back a tear.
Soon they saw the local Rabbi coming along. Mike said, "Ah, there's another good man." Pat said, "A good man indeed. Not a Christian, but a good upstanding man in the community." The Rabbi also turned and entered the infamous house. Both men gasped. "Did ye see that?" Pat exclaimed. "Aye," said Mike. "I never would have believed it. The mighty are fallen, 'tis the truth."
A moment later, the local Catholic priest came by. "Ah," said Pat. "Now there's me man! Solid, godly and upright!" Mike nodded. "A true light in our community, a man I'd trust with me very life!" The priest then turned and walked into the House.
Pat grabbed Mike's arm. "Begorrah, Mike! Somebody must be dyin' in there!"
(Note: Yes, I'm Irish. On both sides.)
[QUOTE=dwashbur;2310878]I have offered something that is reasonable in the light of Scripture AND history. It is a historical fact that the progression of empires was Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Do you dispute that?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
You have offered nothing other than saying that I am wrong.
Why not tell us what YOU believe? How do YOU interpret these prophecies?
Do you have nothing positive for this Texas redneck? Hmmmm?
[QUOTE=galveston;2312242]I'm not saying the vision doesn't represent those four. I'm saying it's not spelled out in the text, and is left to the reader to try and sort it out. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were giving an interpretation that isn't explicitly in the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Now, how about this: the stone that destroys the statue and grows to fill the earth is: the church! God's kingdom breaks into human history in the form of Jesus' church which he established by his resurrection when he defeated death and Satan and made membership in his kingdom possible for everyone. If we're going to go by historical sequence, that's the most reasonable explanation for the final portion of the vision.
[QUOTE=dwashbur;2312321]Can't fault your interpretationQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
[QUOTE=paraclete;2312619]Why, thank you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Where is everybody?
I’m still irritated about the Catholic jokes. I don’t get it. Who was it that died?
JoeT
Do you really want an explanation? I'll PM you if you do. Change the Catholic to Lutheran; they're still funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
They assumed the priest couldn't have been going into the place for the most obvious reason. As WG said, change it from Catholic to whatever you please, it works with any of them. Don't get irritated, it's all in fun. In fact, I usually tell my jokes about Baptists since that's the group I know best.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Another great line I heard a long time ago:
To live above, with those we love, oh, that will be glory.
To live below, with those we know, now that's another story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Well, NO!!
Do you get it now? I could make it less of a (staying on-task here) tribulation for you by changing "Catholic" to "Lutheran."Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
[QUOTE=dwashbur;2312321]So do you think that the church will, in the process of time, take over the kingdoms of this world and send them into the dust bin of history, or do you think it will be a cataclysmic event at the return of Christ?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Apparently you are not IrishQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
galveston, Good questions.
Fred
[QUOTE=galveston;2313869]Both.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Its hard enough being Italian and then you want wish Irish on me too? Do you know how hard it is to talk the blarney while you're eating spaghetti?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
JoeT
No, but being part English and German in addition to Irish, I know how hard it is to live up to people's expectations of putting mayonnaise on your bratwurst...Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
dwashbur,
LOL
Thanks I'll remember that for I am German, Irish, French, and some other mixtures.
A mongrel, that's me.
Peace asnd kindness,
Fred
[QUOTE=dwashbur;2313962]Well, the Church has grown and continues to grow, but I doubt you can show from Scripture that it will take over the world and present it to Christ when He returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
There are some people who believe that. I am not one of them.
[QUOTE=dwashbur;2312321]Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Lets take a look at the scriptures:
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. Daniel 2:45 KJV
And the NIV : This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
Now who in the word of God is called a stone?
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily
The Lord Jesus Christ.
Who in the word of God is called a Rock?
Ps. 94:22 But the LORD has become my fortress, and my God the rock in whom I take refuge.
The Lord Jesus Christ
The bible is a self defining book. It is clear the stone or rock not formed by HUMAN hands is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.
The thought it could be the church very unlikely. Think about it.. the church or the body of Christ can't agree on squat. How are we going to defeat this giant beast that devours and crushes. Sad but true..
Just like when Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock [then pointed at Himself] will I build My Church."Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
If Jesus had meant Peter, He would have said, "Upon thee will I build My Church."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Which verse does it say "then pointed at Himself"? I must've missed that one.
[QUOTE=classyT;2315150]Irrelevant. The description fits the church. Look at Jesus' parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13. One of the things that dispensationalists have never understood is the tension inherent in the "here/not-here," "now/not-yet" nature of the Kingdom. It has broken into human history in the form of the church Jesus founded, and continues to gradually leaven the whole lump. It reaches its culmination in the return of Jesus to complete the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Dave,
What you want to debate was my OPINION. And you are welcome to do that because it is only MY thoughts. BUT...
I gave you biblical reasons as to why I believe this stone or rock is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is a self defining book. Rock and Stone... is MY savior not the church.
Honestly, it isn't about being a dispensationalist. I'm NOT trying to make my views FIT a pretrib rapture. No scripture is of a private interpretaion, therefore it must be compared with other scripture. Sorry Dave, Jesus IS the ROCK.
Well, I don't know that he pointed to himself.. but I believe he was speaking of himself. So I agree with you... The wise man built his house upon THE ROCK... just one more thing the Lord himself said. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It was on Skype. Sorry you missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
(Just think -- if only they had had cell phones and computers and Skype back then.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Where is scripture given the authority of self determination? Or self 'defining'? I sure am missing a bunch of verses. 'T' how can a book have authority, what's it going to do to correct you when you're wrong, close on your finger?
JoeT
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 AM. |