Hey Joe,
I didn't mean for you to withdraw anything, though I appreciate the graciousness that led you to do so. Very decent of you.
|
Hey Joe,
I didn't mean for you to withdraw anything, though I appreciate the graciousness that led you to do so. Very decent of you.
I get carried away sometimes. I'm beginning to see where you're headed with this and I didn't want to start the Catholic vs. not-Catholic thing. It does get old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Great job keeping this hot-head in line!
JoeT
Happy to be of service--though I think you did it all on your own. Nevertheless, I am just shallow enough to accept the credit!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Thanks, De Maria. I've read many of your other posts in other threads, so I can predict your answer, but thanks for spelling out so cogently the Catholic side of those two questions.
Now how about tackling "justification by faith alone," another break from Catholic Tradition. (I say "Catholic" because that is the church body that most often offers a defense for Tradition.)
Now you're learning Doc! Take the credit and run! At least throw money!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I'm throwing! I'm throwing! The coins just keep bouncing off the screen!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Sure. Thanks for asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
In this case, we must take into consideration what is said of St. Paul in the Scriptures:
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his (St. Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
So, Scripture says that some of St. Paul's teachings are hard to understand. And this is one of them.
Because St. James is very clear in saying:
James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
And also:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Unfortunately, it isn't quite that clear cut. Because St. Paul seems to contradict St. James directly:
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
See the problem?
The good thing is that they both referred to Father Abraham to support their doctrine. And no one can deny that Father Abraham worked in obedience to God's call:
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
So how could St. Paul say that Father Abraham did not work?
Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Well he didn't. He said that he was not justified because of what he did. But because of the faith with which he responded to God's voice.
Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
And this is the Catholic position. If we have faith, we will obey God's voice, and be saved. As we can see, in another place, St. Paul says that Jesus gives eternal salvation to all who have faith? No, to all who obey.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
And this is in complete agreement with St. James, who says:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Let me throw out a question.
Scattered throughout the New Testament is references to the word “scripture,” e.g. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22). This occurs 30 or 32 times.
I've always understood this to mean the Septuagint or Old Testament. The reason I drew this distinction is when reading the Gospels and the Epistles I don't get the sense that the author knew he was writing “Sacred Scripture.” In places other than 2 Tim 3 where we see “ALL scripture, inspired of God, is profitable,” the writer is referring to the Old Testament. And even here, at the time Paul was writing his epistle surly wasn't referring to other New Testament writings?
Any opinions?
JoeT
I've developed a new category of computer problems - money keeps falling out of my monitor? Strange!
To keep it very brief, the history of your own religion, is but a fraction of the history of total man, so you can see where my response is a broader view, than the regional one you have. Many upon the earth predate Christianity, and let us not forget that even Christianity is based upon Judaism, as is Islam also, but of course, for some reason the evolutionary truth between the relationship of these religions is often disputed, distorted, and misrepresented, and as all history tells us, when we have interfaith disputes, we just go down the road, and take our followers with us, and start our own church, and the best example is modern day Christianity. Not to single one religion out, but they all follow the same model. So one is no more unique than the other, nor any closer to the truth than another. So far as tradition, that's only the expression of man in what he believes, and so what he passes down, for his children to believe. Just my view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
De Maria,
Your view is ineresting.
I do not fully agree.
I do believe that Catholicism is the true, full Christian faith as The Church IS guided by The Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
For example:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Rev 21:14-15
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
NKJV
We've been through that many times - the only education that I got from that is that as I looked into the claims that I put forward, my faith in the truth of scripture rather than the claims of tradition was increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Really? Do you deny Paul is an Apostle?Quote:
It is actually you who does that all the time. Like for instance, in this thread saying that Jesus appointed St. Paul in place of Judas. That is an addition to Scripture.
We've been through this before also, and your claims does not stand up to historical examination. Even Jerome opposed the Apocrypha as being canonical.Quote:
Nope. Those books were in the Catholic Scriptures from the time of Jesus who used the Septuagint Old Testament which included them. It was Luther who took them out.
De Maria,
The Rev mention about on the wall's foundation were the names of the original 12 apostles which included Judas.
That can not be proven wither way,
It also does not say Only 12.
It is a stretch but people who don not want to believe in apostolic suggestion as the bible demonstrates that there is like to use that passage in an attempt to claim there were 12 ONLY apostles and never any more.
Peace and kindness,
]Fred
Please show us where scripture says that and where scripture tells us that there were more than those documented in the future foundation of the New Jerusalem.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Where does scripture dictate Apostolic succession?Quote:
It is a stretch but people who don not want to believe in apostolic suggestion as the bible demonstrates that there is like to use that passage in an attempt to claim there were 12 ONLY apostles and never any more.
Peace and kindness,
]Fred
Tj3,
You have been told that many time over several years. Please don't bother to ask again.
It will just start another confrontation and the hut down of another thread,
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Here, too, I think, a lot turns on what ends up counting as Scripture. When the NT quotes Scripture it of course quotes the OT; I'm inclined to agree with what you wrote. But how do people explain the canon of the NT, which didn't exist--at least, it didn't exist outside God's mind--in the first century. People had to make decisions about what went in and what got left out, and we today, each of us, has a decision to make whether to abide by the canon we've received. Since you, Fred, and De Maria have explained your views on this, it would be really nice if others, who hold a different view from yours, would pony up and address the question. Instead, we are apparently meant to drop the topic we've all been discussing in order to argue about Trent and how many Apostles there were (though, notice, I started another thread on that very topic for anyone interested).Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Where does that say ONLY twelve and where does that say that St. Paul replaces Judas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The bible shows where Judus was replaced, the other Apostles picked and replaced him. Please it is there, and it was not Pual, Paul was chosen by God, but not as a replacement to any of the 12,
This is a very clear part and I can't see why it is even a question on Judas replacement
What point is it with which you disagree. I believe I have expounded Catholic Teaching. But if a faithful Catholic disagrees, perhaps I made a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
St. Peter seems to imply that they knew they were writing Scripture:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Whether he meant "Sacred Scriptures" is a debatable point. But I think he does mean Sacred Scriptures, otherwise, why does he mention that twisting them can lead to destruction?
Scripture counts St. MatthiasQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Acts 1:25
That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
And St. Paul as Apostles.
Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
That makes fourteen.
Acts 1 15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.Quote:
Where does scripture dictate Apostolic succession?
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
I could not remember what you said that prompted me to respond as I did.
So I went back and carefully reread your post.
I could not find anything I disagreed with.
It appears that I must have misread something in your post.
I apologize.
Thanks for calling that to my attention.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Twisting anyone's words can lead to destruction in some way, shape, or form. If I twist FrChuck's words (or ANYone's words so that I cause trouble), I could get kicked off AMHD.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Wondergirl,
For several years I have had to deal with a person who often twist what I or others say and even, at times. Also Scripture.
I have confronted him about it many times but to no avail.
I have never reported him, but have been tempted to do so.
I have come to realize that a person who has that bad habit it is so ingrained that he or she can not see that they have done any wrong.
The habit has become ingrained.
They think it is OK for them to do so.
Peace and kindness,'
Fred
No problem. As long as you recognize that your statements made no dent on me. And I invite anyone to review those debates we had. I'm confident everyone will see that you simply evaded questions and played loose with the facts. Whilst I produced valid arguments and verifiable facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...re-172099.html
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ne-232879.html
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...re-252443.html
No. Do you deny that Judas Iscariot was an original Apostle and that St. Matthias took his place?Quote:
Really? Do you deny Paul is an Apostle?
St. Jerome included the Apocrypha in His Latin Vulgate. So obviously, he changed his mind on the matter.Quote:
We've been through this before also, and your claims does not stand up to historical examination. Even Jerome opposed the Apocrypha as being canonical.
Whenever you want to get back to the thread, we're all ready. Oh and for your convenience, I'll start a deuterocanon thread. We'll let the readers make up their minds who can produce more evidence and more logical answers for that argument as well.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
Right you are.
I'm pleased and interested in your ne thread.
I'll take a look at it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
And this was a serious problem for early Christian communities: Lots of infighting. Raymond Brown's "The Community of the Beloved Disciple" is excellent on this. This is why I say it isn't obvious to me that the authors of these texts took themselves to be writing what would one day count as SCripture: They had to address the immediate needs of their communities, some of which were tearing themselves apart. (Of course, I don't think it's obvious that they took themselves NOT to be writing Scripture; sorting this out is just part and parcel of sorting out what belongs to the canon.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Many early Christians referred to Paul as the Apostle of the Heretics since his words were routinely taken up and appropriated by so many Gnostics. (That's just an aside, really.)
I suspect Moses didn't realize the posting of the Ten Commandments would become the object of such controversy in the 21st century. Abraham Lincoln probably didn't realize the historical value of that speech he wrote on the back of an envelope on the train ride from D. C. to Gettysburg. Like these men, St. Paul, as you say, was addressing the immediate needs of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Surrendering? Surrender to fate? My God, fate can’t discharge a weapon. How can we be “meant “ to do something that’s incomprehensible? Do you think warriors are made on the practice field? No, they’re made Marines on the battle field!Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Do you know a better way to find the living fountain of Truth?
I have another far more solid and central ground for submitting to it as a faith, instead of merely picking up hints from it as a scheme. And that is this: that the Christian Church in its practical relation to my soul is a living teacher, not a dead one.” G. K. Chesterton.
Good Night Chesty, Wherever You Are
Semper Fi
JoeT
Way to go Joe.
Well said,
Fred
I'm not a Christian but I've been reading what you're all talking about, I find it very interesting.
Sadly I can't contribute to the discussion, just wanted to say that I'm learning a lot, very interesting stuff. :)
Merry Christmas everyone. :)
Sure you can. Just ask questions about what interests you or what may not be clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
I'm sure somebody will clue you in. Also, most bibles have a forward in front of each book with a short explanation of who wrote and why. The dirty secret is that it makes you an instant expert. Most people don't read them
JoeT
Thanks Joe but right now I prefer to remain a spectator.
Just wanted you all to know that I'm watching. ;)
We don't mind friendly visits. Welcome and Merry Christmas to you as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Sincerely,
De Maria
Thanks for the welcome. :)
Just here to read and learn. It's an interesting topic.
It wouldn't be right for me to join in though, I'm not Christian, although I used to be.
I'm just enjoying your explanations and learning something in the process.
Thanks again for the warm welcome, it's very much appreciated. Now I must go wrap some presents from Santa to my kids, got to keep the traditions alive. :)
Happy wrapping!Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
And, for what it's worth (and speaking only for myself), I'm always interested to hear how reasonable people think about this stuff. Some of the best teachers I had weren't Christians (some f my best students too, come to think of it), so that's no impediment as far as I can tell. Which is just to say that I really hope you won't be sheepish about offering your take on things if and when you feel inclined to do so. Rational discussion is always more fun with lots of different views in the mix.
In the meantime: Be well... and beware of paper cuts.
Hi Altenweg.
Nice to see you here even if just visiting and learning.
You are very welcome here.
Merry Christmas with peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
Hoorah! Gunney, hoorah!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Ps: If a twenty fell out of your monitor please send it back. I thought it was a single when I threw it at the screen. Also, could I get a receipt? You know, for tax purposes?
Akoue,
LOL
Fred
Once again thank you for the warm welcome. Gosh, you all are making me blush a bit. Maybe I should have stayed in the shadows. ;)
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 AM. |