I thought you said that Christ was the “foundation”? If he’s the head, which I agree with, then who might be the foundation – Peter?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
|
I thought you said that Christ was the “foundation”? If he’s the head, which I agree with, then who might be the foundation – Peter?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
No, usually even in those cases where you use scripture, you just repeat the party line within dealing with the points raised, such as the same old, same old line claiming that Matthew 16 says that Peter was made pope. We cvould refute this 100 times, and you will come back with the same old lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Like this one:
And then you will use Matthew 16 to supposedly justify the claim,Quote:
That is your twisting of the facts. Jesus established His Church in the 1st Century.
Ignoring the fact that the word used for Peter is stone, and ignoring the context and the grammar. We been through this many time.Quote:
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Sola Scriptura refers to scriptura is the sole source of doctrine. I've been through this where Romans Catholics claim that it means that we cannot have preaching, we cannot have other Christian books, and so on and so forth.Quote:
Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. The word "Sola" is Latin for "alone". The word "Scriptura" is Latin for Scripture.
Using alternate terminology like that is a great way for you to confuse the issue, but not any way to help bring understanding.
See - this is the type of ridiculous claims that people make by use of the term "scripture alone".Quote:
In essence then, you have proved the illogical aspect of Sola Scriptura. If you have the authority to teach Scripture, then Scripture is not alone.
The same command was made to all Christians. Peter was not unique. I showed you this before from scripture.Quote:
Yes. He is our Shepherd. But the Shepherd left Peter to "feed" His sheep:
Are you denying His omnipresence? Because though He ascended bodily so that He could send the Holy Spirit to indwell us, He reamins present with us. At least with my church!Quote:
Are you sure? Because Jesus left us His peace when He left:
But He said in John 6 that those who believed that they needed to eat real flesh were the ones who betrayed Him.Quote:
Actually, it is in our Church where He remains, but in Sacramental fashion. His Real Presence in the guise of Bread and Wine.
Scripture says that Christ is both the head and the foundation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Such is the way all buildings are built, the name of the founder (the authority) is the name of the building and the foundation is that which supports the founder’s wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder’s Church; primarily because of his faith was bequeathed by God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder.
Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation. I could agree to a statement like that, as I’m sure you would.
JoeT
Hi Sndbay,Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Did you intend to address the topic? Because I don't see the relation of these verses to the OP.
Sincerely,
De Maria
He is all things.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Christ is the Foundation and upon it was the fellowship built by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the corner stone.
1 Corinthains 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ
Eph 2:19- 20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Note here also the building fitly framed [Our Father's Truth the Pillar] together unto a Temple [which is Christ] which is build for Our Father throught The Spirit.
And these scripture reinerate that fact again.
Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:18-19 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence .For it pleased [The Father] that in Him should all fulness dwell And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven
Our Father the Pillar of Truth
Numbers 14:14 And they will tell [it] to the inhabitants of this land: [for] they have heard that thou LORD [art] among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and [that] thy cloud standeth over them, and [that] thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
Neh 9:12 Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go.
This is a continueous circle of the Trinity that leads everything to "ONE"
There is scripture to prove who is the Light.. Who is the Truth... Who is the Blood... Who is the Water.. Who is the Temple... Who is the Spirit... Who is the Pillar... Who is the Word It goes on and on.. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost = "ONE"
People try to think out of pride rather then of the power and glory of Our Father in Heaven.
We are servants of righteousness if we believe and are baptized. That's it and hold stedfast to that Truth [ Our Father]. Everyone should give Our Father "all" above all else. It's the 1st commandment. Your choice of Free Will. All Honor and Glory to the Trinity of ONE
Sorry Sndbay, I picked this argument under the wrong thread. I don't want to walk over De Maria. We'll take this up later.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Sorry to you too De Maria, shouldn't have done it
JoeT
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Not a problem Joe.. The post I made was to benefit and not cause a problem..
I thought the previous posts were gearing toward dominion and exercising lordship.
May the reader find it helpful.
I note how you altered what scripture says. It does not say that Jesus' name is on the head and foundation - it says that He IS the head and foundation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
That alone invalidates your claim that Peter was designated.
The truth doesn't change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I've used many arguments to refute your attempts at refutation.Quote:
We cvould refute this 100 times, and you will come back with the same old lines.
I'm glad you acknowledge that the word used for Peter is stone. And there is such a thing as a foundation stone. Which means that stones aren't always small.Quote:
Ignoring the fact that the word used for Peter is stone,
Not true. I have highlighted over and over that Jesus is talking to Simon. That Jesus is giving Simon a name that previously only referred to God. I have highlighted that this is not something that is new. God previously appointed Moses as His representative and called Moses, God and Aaron his prophet.Quote:
and ignoring the context and the grammar. We been through this many time.
Exactly. But Scripture doesn't say that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. So yours is a self defeating statement.Quote:
Sola Scriptura refers to scriptura is the sole source of doctrine.
Here it is logically stated:
1. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine.
2. Scripture does not say that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine.
3. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.
Here it is stated a different way:
1. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine.
2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.
3. Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.
4. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true doctrine and...
5. Scripture is not the sole source of doctrine.
Many people claiming to be Catholic say many different things. Remember St. Joan? Show me where Catholic doctrine says we can't have preaching.Quote:
I've been through this where Romans Catholics claim that it means that we cannot have preaching, we cannot have other Christian books, and so on and so forth.
Oh that is rich!! Didn't you know that Sola Scriptura was a Latin phrase? This is not alternate terminology. This is the actual terminology. You might want to study what Luther taught. After all, if you claim to believe his doctrine, you should understand what it means.Quote:
Using alternate terminology like that is a great way for you to confuse the issue, but not any way to help bring understanding.
Obviously you don't even submit to the authority of the man who invented the term and defined the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Again that shows how you are your own authority and your own source of doctrine.Quote:
See - this is the type of ridiculous claims that people make by use of the term "scripture alone".
But in this verse, Jesus appointed Peter directly to "feed His sheep."Quote:
The same command was made to all Christians. Peter was not unique. I showed you this before from scripture.
Does He preach in your church? Because although He remains present with us, He appointed Church leaders to preach His Word. But if you are saying that Jesus gets up before your congregation and preaches, then you are truly blessed.Quote:
Are you denying His omnipresence? Because though He ascended bodily so that He could send the Holy Spirit to indwell us, He reamins present with us. At least with my church!
No He didn't. That is you twisting the Scripture.Quote:
But He said in John 6 that those who believed that they needed to eat real flesh were the ones who betrayed Him.
He said and I quote:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Truth does not change, and no matter how many times you try to make it change, it does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
True, but it is still a stone. And scripture tells us that Jesus is also the foundation stone (cornerstone):Quote:
I'm glad you acknowledge that the word used for Peter is stone. And there is such a thing as a foundation stone. Which means that stones aren't always small.
Mark 12:10
10 Have you not read this Scripture:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
NKJV
That is not Peter either.
Your claim, but once again it ignores what scripture says, the Greek meanings of the words and the grammar. Repeating it over and over ignoring these points does not help.Quote:
Not true. I have highlighted over and over that Jesus is talking to Simon. That Jesus is giving Simon a name that previously only referred to God. I have highlighted that this is not something that is new. God previously appointed Moses as His representative and called Moses, God and Aaron his prophet.
Why do you defy the scriptural command by going beyond what is written? Sola scriptura is indeed in scripture, but your biggest problem is not sola scriptura, but the complete lack of validation for going beyond God's word in establishing doctrine.Quote:
Exactly. But Scripture doesn't say that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. So yours is a self defeating statement.
Strawman argument - who said that we cannot have preaching?Quote:
Show me where Catholic doctrine says we can't have preaching.
I do not follow Luther. I follow God. This is a key reason for our disagreement - you look to the words of men and expect me to as well. I look to the words of God, and no matter how much you would like to control what I think and believe, you cannot.Quote:
Oh that is rich!! Didn't you know that Sola Scriptura was a Latin phrase? This is not alternate terminology. This is the actual terminology. You might want to study what Luther taught. After all, if you claim to believe his doctrine, you should understand what it means.
I submit to the authority of God.Quote:
Obviously you don't even submit to the authority of the man who invented the term and defined the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
And appointed others elsewhere. Why do you point out one scripture and ignore the rest?Quote:
But in this verse, Jesus appointed Peter directly to "feed His sheep."
I feel sorry for you if God does not speak to you.Quote:
Does He preach in your church? Because although He remains present with us, He appointed Church leaders to preach His Word. But if you are saying that Jesus gets up before your congregation and preaches, then you are truly blessed.
He said it in those words - do I have to repeat the quote to you once again?Quote:
No He didn't. That is you twisting the Scripture.
Truth Does Not Change!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Our Father [is] The Spirit of Truth --------> Who is Truth ? Our 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.
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of Truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.
Exd 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in Goodness and Truth,
Children of the Devil
1 John 2:4 he that saith, I know Him, and keepeth [not] His commandments, is a liar, and the Truth is not in him.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, because there is no Truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Again, I have to wonder whether you understand English? Or why do you pretend that I try to make it change. It is you who are accusing me of saying the same thing over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And it is Jesus who calls Peter a stone and says that stone He will build His Church. So the only way you can deny it is by eliminating Matt 16:18 from the Bible.Quote:
True, but it is still a stone. And scripture tells us that Jesus is also the foundation stone (cornerstone):
That doesn't change the fact that JESUS SAID that He would build His Church on Peter. I know you don't like that idea but it is Scripture and I believe the Word of God. Not your interpretation.Quote:
Mark 12:10
10 Have you not read this Scripture:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
NKJV
That is not Peter either.
Are you Greek? Do you speak the Greek language?Quote:
Your claim, but once again it ignores what scripture says, the Greek meanings of the words and the grammar. Repeating it over and over ignoring these points does not help.
Here is an explanation by a Greek expert:
Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. When the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon's name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael.
Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] Petra does mean 'rock', usually a 'large rock.' That is exactly what petros means. The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros, used numerous times in the Bible (Mt. 4:6, 7:9, 21:42, by my quick count, 32 times in the New Testament).
An Exchange on Peter, the Papacy and Succession
Essentially, yours is an "anything but Peter" argument. But your argument goes against the very Scriptures which you claim to love.
Where is that command? Lets examine it and see if it means what you claim it means.Quote:
Why do you defy the scriptural command by going beyond what is written?
If it were, you would have produced the verse. But you haven't. You just "interpret" it into Scripture. But your interpretation contradicts several other passages:Quote:
Sola scriptura is indeed in scripture
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Romans 12 6 And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; 7 Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teacheth, in doctrine; 8 He that exhorteth, in exhorting; he that giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with carefulness; ....
Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
2 Timothy 1 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.
It is actually you going beyond God's word. As I've shown, Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture, is not taught in Scripture and is therefore a false doctrine of men.Quote:
, but your biggest problem is not sola scriptura, but the complete lack of validation for going beyond God's word in establishing doctrine.
You did. As I've shown. Scripture ALONE means that you don't need to interfere by preaching the word of God. You claim that Scripture is perfectly clear and needs no interpretation. Yet you keep preaching. Obviously, you are contradicting by your actions what you claim for Scripture.Quote:
Strawman argument - who said that we cannot have preaching?
Thanks for admitting that you are really your own authority. Luther is the author of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You follow his doctrine but claim not to follow his teaching. Another contradiction in your beliefs.Quote:
I do not follow Luther.
I don't deny that you sincerely want to follow God. But you have essentially replaced your own opinions for the Commandments of God.Quote:
I follow God.
I don't deny that I have faith in the men which God appointed with authority over my soul:Quote:
This is a key reason for our disagreement - you look to the words of men and expect me to as well. I look to the words of God, and no matter how much you would like to control what I think and believe, you cannot.
Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
And I agree that our difference has to do with authority. I recognize the authority of the Church which Jesus placed here to teach us His truths:
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
In contrast you show nothing but disdain for the teaching of God's Church.
You have replaced God with your own authority.Quote:
I submit to the authority of God.
Why do you point to no Scriptures but only to your opinions?Quote:
And appointed others elsewhere. Why do you point out one scripture and ignore the rest?
God speaks to me through His Church. Are you saying that God speaks to you directly as He did to Moses?Quote:
I feel sorry for you if God does not speak to you.
Please do, that way I can again highlight how you twisted it.Quote:
He said it in those words - do I have to repeat the quote to you once again?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Are you saying that Jesus is not the truth:Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
John 14 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
Or why did you say simply:
Who is Truth ? Our Father
Sincerely,
De Maria
Sigh! Hardly worth talking to you when your best defense is abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Where? You claim it, but scripture doesn't say it.Quote:
That doesn't change the fact that JESUS SAID that He would build His Church on Peter.
Apparently a Greek expert without a name :D Or maybe one that doesn't want his name to be known!Quote:
Here is an explanation by a Greek expert:
1 Cor 4:6. But I am sure that you will priovately interpret it to say something else or redefine the word as you have done for preaching and teaching!Quote:
Where is that command? Lets examine it and see if it means what you claim it means.
Note that that tradition was written down - where? Scripture. And since we no longer have Apostles, they are no longer speaking it to us, so we have one standard of doctrine.Quote:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
The rest of your same old, same old are just time wasters. Please come up with some new material from time to time.
Just an observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Sure does:Quote:
Where? You claim it, but scripture doesn't say it.
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I don't know why you call it abuse. Its an observation of a trait which you display overtly. Either you don't understand English or you are intentionally twisting the meaning of my words or you are ignoring my messages. Here, I'll highlight the name. Please go to the message and you'll see the name there as well:Quote:
Apparently a Greek expert without a name :D Or maybe one that doesn't want his name to be known!
Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.
Lol!!Quote:
1 Cor 4:6. But I am sure that you will priovately interpret it to say something else or redefine the word as you have done for preaching and teaching!
No. I'll read it in the Spirit in which it was written and in context:
1 Cor 4 5 Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God. 6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written. 7 For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
According to you, what do you think this means?
Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:Quote:
Note that that tradition was written down - where? Scripture. And since we no longer have Apostles, they are no longer speaking it to us, so we have one standard of doctrine.
2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.
Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
As I said, the truth doesn't change, no matter how much you would like it to change.Quote:
The rest of your same old, same old
I can't. My material is based upon the Word of God. Only innovators like yourself can come up with new material.Quote:
are just time wasters. Please come up with some new material from time to time.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Ah, so to you abuse is okay if you define it as "just an observation".Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You claim it does, but it neither says what you claim if you actually read that verse in context in English, and especially not if you read in the original Greek language.Quote:
Sure does:
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I read the page - I see unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed author who you claim to be a Greek expert. I go by what recognized Greek experts say.Quote:
I don't know why you call it abuse. Its an observation of a trait which you display overtly. Either you don't understand English or you are intentionally twisting the meaning of my words or you are ignoring my messages. Here, I'll highlight the name. Please go to the message and you'll see the name there as well:
Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.
I let scripture speak for itself, but I am sure that you have another private interpretation to offer.Quote:
1 Cor 4 5 Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God. 6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written. 7 For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
According to you, what do you think this means?
You keep using these passages which have nothing to do with tradition.Quote:
Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.
Clearly Paul was speaking of what was written down and in oral form. And let me ask you, is Paul still telling us this orally, or do we have it in written form?Quote:
Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
And where does Paul say that the oral differs from the written?
You're funnyQuote:
I can't. My material is based upon the Word of God.
Well, when the message has the names of the Protestant Greek Scholars BOLDED. Its hard to take you seriously when you say that no name was mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And when you claim that I haven't provided verses to support my contention, and the verses are staring you in the face in the OP, its hard to believe that you are debating in good faith.
When you use the name of a fake Catholic (a Protestant passing herself off as a Catholic on this forum) to support your contentions against the Catholic Church, its hard to believe that you understand the ethics of a true Christian.
There are many more reasons which lead me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Catholic Church. You just have an attitude of "Anything but the Catholic Church". I've seen it before. Even on this forum there was a Protestant siding with atheists against Catholics.
The only thing that can explain that type of hatred is the prophecy of Jesus Christ:
John 15 18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.
I've explained it in English. I've provided the explanation by Protestant Greek Scholars. What more do you want?Quote:
You claim it does, but it neither says what you claim if you actually read that verse in context in English, and especially not if you read in the original Greek language.
Funny you keep saying that but I provided the reference and the name of the Greek Scholars who disagree with you and all you provided was an unsupported denial.Quote:
I read the page - I see unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed author who you claim to be a Greek expert. I go by what recognized Greek experts say.
So you don't want to compare your understanding to mine in order to see which is closer to the truth?Quote:
I let scripture speak for itself, but I am sure that you have another private interpretation to offer.
Sure they do. They are the very definition of tradition.Quote:
You keep using these passages which have nothing to do with tradition.
Very good. You're getting warm. But from what you've said, I see that you recognize two forms of tradition, written and oral.Quote:
Clearly Paul was speaking of what was written down and in oral form.
We are reading the written tradition. But has the oral tradition disappeared?Quote:
And let me ask you, is Paul still telling us this orally, or do we have it in written form?
And now, I've answered your question but you dodged mine. So, please answer the question. I'll highlight it in bold:
Quote:
Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Who said that the oral differed from the written. Certainly not the Catholic Church:Quote:
And where does Paul say that the oral differs from the written?
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (192 bytes ) preview document matches
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God,
URL: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97
That's OK. I don't mind being funny.Quote:
You're funny
Sincerely,
De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
1 John 5: 6-7 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
You claimked that the article was authored by a Greek expert. And just tossing anmes around and maiking claims is not a valid way to validate a claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You made a claimked that jesus commanded tradition - it isn't there. If you claim it is, copy and paste it here.Quote:
And when you claim that I haven't provided verses to support my contention, and the verses are staring you in the face in the OP, its hard to believe that you are debating in good faith.
What are you smoking? I used no one's name on this forum to validate anything.Quote:
When you use the name of a fake Catholic (a Protestant passing herself off as a Catholic on this forum) to support your contentions against the Catholic Church, its hard to believe that you understand the ethics of a true Christian.
Believe what you wish. Your ad hominems say more about you than me.Quote:
There are many more reasons which lead me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Catholic Church. You just have an attitude of "Anything but the Catholic Church". I've seen it before.
Here we go - if we dare disagree with you, it is "hatred". Does that mean when you disagree with non-Catholics that you are showing hatred against Christians. Come on, deal with the issue - if you can - and stop the false accusations and abusive comments.Quote:
The only thing that can explain that type of hatred is the prophecy of Jesus Christ:
That is funny!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This is why its hard to take you seriously. Look at the message again, not only are they named, they are quoted, the titles of their books are included, so is the name of their respective publishing company. The only thing they didn't include is the page number. Please!
Come on Tom! First you pretend there are no names mentioned. I re emphasize the names. Now you pretend there are only names mentioned. What will you come up with next?
Sure. Since it isn't in this OP, I'll be glad to post them again:Quote:
You made a claimked that jesus commanded tradition - it isn't there. If you claim it is, copy and paste it here.
John 6 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
1 Cor 11 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
These are all Traditions.
Sure you did. Message #125 Can you lose your salvation?Quote:
What are you smoking? I used no one's name on this forum to validate anything.
the difference is that I was simply indicating that the Roman catholic teaching quoted by saintjoan sounded like the Mormon teaching that heaven was like hell (everlasting burnings).
See also the messages where you were setting it up so she could twist Catholic teaching:
Do dead people go to hell? Page 8 messages 74-78
You continue to accuse me of ad hominems because you can't respond to the logic or wisdom of Catholic Teaching.Quote:
Believe what you wish. Your ad hominems say more about you than me.
You don't hate the Catholic Church? But if you think the Catholic Church is revealed in Rev 17, why don't you hate Her?Quote:
Here we go - if we dare disagree with you, it is "hatred". Does that mean when you disagree with non-Catholics that you are showing hatred against Christians. Come on, deal with the issue - if you can - and stop the false accusations and abusive comments.
I would.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Why do I waste my time with you - you apparently did not even read what I said. Go back and try again, more slowly this time and turn on the light.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
So once again - where did Jesus command tradition?Quote:
John 6 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
1 Cor 11 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
No, none of them are.Quote:
These are all Traditions.
Again I ask, what are you smoking. Your false accusation was:Quote:
Sure you did. Message #125 Can you lose your salvation?
--------------------
When you use the name of a fake Catholic (a Protestant passing herself off as a Catholic on this forum) to support your contentions against the Catholic Church, its hard to believe that you understand the ethics of a true Christian.
--------------------
If you don't see the difference, then clearly you are not being honest.
I would like nothing more than to see the Roman religion divest itself of the false teachings and come to teach the full uncorrupted Biblical truth. I hate the false teachings, but I care about the people.Quote:
You don't hate the Catholic Church? But if you think the Catholic Church is revealed in Rev 17, why don't you hate Her?
Roman Catholic beliefs:
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854
I’m really lost on this one –which is the fake Catholic which is the passing Protestant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
I am well acquainted with Roman beliefs. What I was to discuss is what scripture says.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
May you should ask Maria.Quote:
I’m really lost on this one –which is the fake Catholic which is the passing Protestant?
JoeT
saintjoan is the fake catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
TJ is the Protestant passing her statements as Catholic doctrine.
It is obvious from their discussions with each other, that TJ has known about this from the beginning.
De Maria,Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Stop the false accusations and deal with the topic, if you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Does this mean that TJ hasn't been honest with us all along? Or does it just mean that he's not been honest about his little trick?
This definitely paints a different color on everything TJ has said up till now.
What's really disturbing is that the code of ethics for engineers requires public statements be truthful after completion of an “objective” study. Most engineers make this a way of life. Not that they don't argue, but that they are most always truthful and objective as a matter of habit and nature; in fact I insist on it. Tj says he's an engineer.
If you're not familiar with codes of practice; in most states professional conduct requires (as a matter of law – in other words you can go to jail if you're found guilty) that conflicts of interest are to be fully disclosed and that all public statements be truthful objective statements or testimony founded upon the knowledge of facts.
JoeT
If the accusation, then tell us who you say was buried on the spot under the Church of St. John Lateran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If the accusation, then tell us who you say was buried on the spot under the Church of St. John Lateran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If you must use false accusations and personal abuse to defend your position, is it worth defending?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
It seems to me that your abuse and that De Maria has long since stopped us from having a value added discussion. Rather, you have chosen to turn it into a "flame zone".
I didn't "defend" anything. I didn't make any false accusations. I made an observation based on the facts presented to me – what was written here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I hold PE’s to a higher standard than that of others; such as lawyers or used car salesmen. They deal with absolute truths daily as a matter of habit. How could you even characterize it as “discussion?” And if you did, could I depend on it being genuine?
And you haven’t seen a flame zone until you’ve seen mine.
I’m disappointed more than anything else. Such things as this reflect badly on how “real worlders” view your profession. For that matter it doesn’t reflect well on a Christians either.
JoeT
Thread closed
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 PM. |