Snd,
The Bride of Christ... is the Church of Christ according to the scriptures. There will be a marriage supper of the lamb. The New Jerusalem is a place the bride ( the body of Christ) will dwell with Him... forever.
|
Snd,
The Bride of Christ... is the Church of Christ according to the scriptures. There will be a marriage supper of the lamb. The New Jerusalem is a place the bride ( the body of Christ) will dwell with Him... forever.
Fred, are you trying to quote JN12;26? If anyone serves me he must follow me;and where I am there my servent will be also, if anyone serves me the father will HONOR him.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Or is it HE 12;28?
Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;
No sure what translation you are using to get "best" out of, Mine sure doesn't read like that.
Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I have always trusted that we hope to be dressed in white linen, able to attend the wedding.
Isa 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.
And that God will rejoice over those dressed in white linen
Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.
SORRY
interesting thread possible, off thread
sndbay,
Yes lets get back to the thread topic.
What reasons are there for Jesus to have established His Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I had hope the idea might spark a light of truth concerning the thread discussion. Jesus was the corner stone, the first born.
When we follow Christ in confession that Christ is the begotten Son of God, and walk in One Fath being HIS doctrine, then we have unity of fellowship in Christ. That would be the established church known as HIS church and members of HIS One Body.
Thus we rejoice in the LORD, because our souls are joyful in God, our hearts circumcised, and our flesh now walks having the spirit, a good conscience toward God; for He hath clothed us with the garments of salvation, He hath covered us with the robe of righteousness. (As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels) There is grace for grace brought forth in preparation for a new Jerusalem.
~In Christ
“Under the fig tree I knew you” (John 1:48): Where do I know you from? Not to unusual a question when a familiar face jogs the memory. The question isn't 'where' did we meet but 'from what source' do you hail, i.e. who sent you. This, on the other hand, is an unusual question to ask, you don't normally ask 'who sent you'. Nathanael's question went straight to the quick; he was obviously a blunt person. This is the type of person whose conversations are 'eye to eye,' without any pretense. In fact in this scene John seems to be sketching Nathanael as measuring up Christ; he draws himself up, setting himself face to face with Christ but turns to Philip to ask, “Can anything of good come from Nazareth? ” Christ immediately recognized the intangible qualities of the man; “no guile” here.
In response to Nathanael's question to Christ, he got, what would seem perfectly ordinary response, “Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” This can be taken to mean that Christ had his eye on Nathanael for selection as an Apostle – ordinary small talk. John had more in mind with these verses than to waste precious words on simple conversation. There's a undercurrent of a parallel at play. The clue to a parallel is the unusual response given by Nathanael, “Rabbi: You are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.” Now, that's a strange response, or was it?
The fig tree is a symbol that runs deep in Judaism. It was more than a national symbol, it was a symbol of the Kingdom of God, a priestly nation, “And Juda, and Israel, dwelt without any fear, every one under his vine, and under his fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25). It was a symbol of the comfort in nationalism the Old Covenant brings. However, there is a prophetic image conveyed by the imagery of the fig tree, “I saw their fathers like the firstfruits of the fig tree in the top thereof: but they went in to Beelphegor (the baal of Mt. Phogor), and alienated themselves to that confusion, and became abominable, as those things were, which they loved.” Hosea 9:10. The ultimate outcome of which we get to see in Matthew, fib tree was unfruitful (The Jewish sons of the first Covenant had not answered God's call to holiness).
Nathaniel was one of those who followed the one who was crying in the wilderness, St. John the Baptist. So Christ's response would have explicitly understood as recalling Hosea, “The days of visitation have come, the days of repaying have come: know, O Israel, that the prophet was foolish, the spiritual man was mad, for the multitude of your iniquity, and the multitude of your madness. The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: the prophet has become a snare of ruin upon all his ways, madness is in the house of his God. They have sinned deeply, as in the days of Gabaa: he will remember their iniquity, and will visit their sin.” (Hosea 9:7-9). The parallels in John chapter 1 are so strong that every first century Jew would have understood Christ was to take the Seat of Moses replacing a spiritual barren land for a kingdom where, “For the Lord your God will bring you into a good land…wherein fig trees and pomegranates, and oliveyards grow: a land of oil and honey. (Deut. 8:7-8).
In the most innocuous verse we find a call to a new Kingdom. The very same Kingdom promised Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6). The nation of Israel which failed to bear first fruit, “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” (Matt 21:43-44).
The Kingdom of God, the New Covenant, what history produced in the Roman Catholic Church, can be found even sitting in the shade of a fig tree. This we see even in the most inconsequential Scriptural verses Christ's ministry to bring us the Kingdom of God.
But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light 1 Peter 2:9
JoeT
JoeT,
Thou art indeed a bible scholar.
I so much enjoy your posts regarding holy Scripture.
You tie it together so nicely that it is easy to contemplate AND understand.
Thanks much,
Fred
ClassyT could you please explain what you meant by the above quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I am sorry you keep on bestowing more importance to the tiny differences that separate the different denominations than the great and basic facts that unite us:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
a) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus' mother was the Virgin Mary?
b) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
c) If you believe the 2 above facts then it should follow that there must be some kind of divine intervention in Mary's pregnancy and consequently, in Jesus' birth.
d) Do you or do you not believe in the Holy Trinity?
e) Do you or do you not believe that what is written in the Gospels muest be substantially what Jesus preached during his life?
If you do, these in my opinion are basic concepts that unite us. And if you do, chances are that sooner or later the ecumenic efforts to join all denominations may finally succeed.
As a matter of fact, the Anglican CHurch and the RCC are sustaining rather constructive conversations in this regard.
On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised to see that you completely skip my mention of the Virgin's apparitions in the 20th Century.
They certainly could not be substantiated by the Bible because it was written 20 to 40 centuries ago.
You look to me like St. Thomas who had to put his fingers on Jesus' wounds to believe the He was Jesus all right.
Do you or do you not believe in the Virgin's apparitions that happened last century?
I am curious to see what you have to answer to the above questions.
Gromitt82
Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
Gromitt, if you don't mind I would like to borrow one of your dot points to highlight my previous argument.
Your example (b) Do you not believe that Jesus is the son of God.
This is a complex proposition which can be broken down into basic subject/predicate sentences. Jesus(subject) is the son of God(predicate) and God(subject) is the father of Jesus(predicate). The two sentences are joined by the logical connective 'and'. When joined together these two sentences are logically consistent. In other words, we don't require any additional knowledge to know its truth. We know it is true just by looking at the structure of the sentence.
Now the important point is that this sentence is NOT a fact.
"Jesus rode on the back of a donkey" is a fact. By that I mean that it is possible to verify at some point in history if a person called Jesus rode on the back of a donkey. I think it is possible to come to some sort of agreement/disagreement over this fact.
But why are they two different types of propositions? "Jesus is the son of God" and "Jesus rode on the back of a donkey". Even though they are both of the subject/predicate type they are completely different. They are GRAMMATICALLY similar but not LOGICALLY similar.
Proposition (b) is a general proposition of the subject/predicate form which cannot be broken down any further. To break it down only confuses matters. Because it cannot be broken down further we have to accept it as it is.
From my point of view I BELIEVE THAT (b) IS TRUE because it is written. However, I acknowledge that there are other people in this world who do not believe (b). How can I show them that (b) or similar propositions are true?
There are only two possibilities.
(a) Show them where it is written in the Bible.
(b) Show them the self evident structure of the proposition
In the final analysis if someone were to reject my two possibilities, just above (a) and (b) then this is not logically inconsistent on their part. There is nothing we can do about it. You accept it or your don't. Trying to break it down into facts does not work for these types of propositions.
Interestingly enough, I think your last proposition, (e) Do you or do you not believe what is written in the Gospels must be substantially what Jesus preached during his life? --This is of the factual kind and can be verified.
I'm not buying into any supposed apparitions or visions.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
Keep this in mind:
2 Cor 11:14-15
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(KJV)
Regardless of what an apparitioin looks like or says, it can be as false as Satan himself. The whole thing is extra-Biblical and if you rely on it you are sure to be deceived.
Sure, it means not taking things out of context... understanding WHO is writing, WHO it is written to, and Why it was written... I believe that MOST Christians... ( myself included) need to always remember this when reading the Bible. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Gromitt you have a pecular view of the Bible. Biblical prophesy has indeed fortold events many centuries ahead and even in the twentieth century but it makes little mention of Mary beyond her role in the birth of Jesus. What then are we to think about these non biblical events associated with Mary. Are we to think that God was taken by surprise by the twentieth century and he needed some additional weight to overcome the opposition. What the Bible says is that an evil generation looks for a sign so we need to be very careful about such signs and the motivations behind them. The veneration and elevation of Mary beyond her biblical role is a deception. Christ is the redeemerQuote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
gromitt82,
I'm sure that there are more things and bible teachings that are believed by most all denominations than the few you mentioned.
Leaders of several denominations have met in the recent past to discuss more unity.
That is a very hopeful sign, I do believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
It had never occurred me trying to analize whether or not Jesus is God's Son through a syntactical analysis. For two obvious reasons. I was never too god at syntactical analysis. I could not care less about subjects and predicates when it comes to believe whether God sent His Son to our beautiful planet to redeem us...Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
On the other hand, I DO NOT THINK either that believing what the Gospels say is more factual than believing Jesus is God's Son. If the latter cannot be verified to believe the former implies a lot of faith too.
There is actually - unless I'm awfully wrong - any way to factually prove that what the Apostles wrote were in fact the very words Jesus said.
Yet, we believe them because we have faith the Jesus is God's Son and therefore, these Words are likely to be those Jesus actually pronounced, for they are basically the same a loving father would tell his sons, and this is what we are, Jesus' sons.
When we read in History books that Julius Caesar said "allea jacta est" when doubting whether or nor to cross the Rubicon river, we believe it hook, line and sinker. We do not even stop to ponder whether this might be the invention of some historian...
But, when we are told by the Apostles -who are also historians in a way-
That Jesus is God's Son, then we start to mull over the possibility this might be a fake argument!
If I may add something to your statement I would say we all are extremely gullible when it comes to when our Governments tell us how much they love us -and this can be easily verified to a be a big lie - whereas we tend to doubt Jesus' love when he gied in the Cross for us...
Is not that a sign that we are not as bright as we think we are?
Gromitt82
Congratulations, my dear friend, for I see that what unite us is by far more important and vital than what separate us.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
So there are still big hopes for both of us, which does not mean that you have to fully accept what I say no more than I have to accept what you say. Perhaps, one good day, people like you and I, will find the right way in between.
As for believing or not in apparitions, this is simply a matter of opinion, although, of course, if you have never been to one of these places your own opinion cannot be very objective, as proven by the fact that infer the possibility they are the work of Satan, without having appreciated the consequences.
I wonder whether Satan would have appreciated that the results of these apparitions (were they his responsibility) would the building of great Basilicas and the conversion of hundreds of thousands... As we say in Spanish he would be throwing stones at his own roof, don't you think?
While I could not agree with you more that Christ is our redeemer, I wonder what events have the Bible foretold in the 20th century?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
For the rest you may care to read what I write about the Virgin Mary to our colleague Galveston in this very thread...
Of course, there are many more, although it depends on the Denominations. I am totally hopeful, though I may not be able to beaar witness of it, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Gromitt82
We have thoroughly hijacked Fred's thread, Sorry Fred.
Let's take this discussion to the religious discussions forum.
I will launch one titled "Jesus the man and the Immaculate Conception"..
gromitt82,
Excellent several posts.
Thank you.
Fred
The Bride of Christ is the Church, that is the Roman Catholic Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
JoeT
JoeT,
Yes, that is true.
The Church is the bride and Christ Jesus is the groom.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I don’t know; what about them? You might read this (it’s on this forum and part of this debate):Quote:
Originally Posted by inhisservice
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2210169
Quote:
They are not the Bride?
It would be called polygamy for a man to have more than one wife, which of course is opposed to scripture. What kind of a God would demand an unyielding fidelity and yet be a polygamist? So, as a man has only one wife, so too is their only One Bride of Christ.
JoeT
Yo, Joe, give me the verse in the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church being the Bride. When I asked for the verse, I mean from the BIBLE written by men inspired by GOD?. come on now, remember?? The one that has 66 books... starts with Genesis... ends with Revelation? Because THAT Bible, says the Bride is the entire BODY of believers.
:)
Now who's being grumpy? I didn't know you wanted verses from the Bible, you do recall I'm not bound to strictly the bible, or to just 66 books. Nevertheless, let's see if I can show you from the bible-only view point.
First, Catholics hold that 'The Bride of Christ' is a metaphorical view of the union of Christ with His Church; that is just like the marriage union between a man and his bride. The children from this mystical union are the faithful.
The Bride of Christ
Apocalypse 21:9-10: And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he took me up in spirit to a great and high mountain: and he shewed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,
Ephesians 5:22-33: Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.
1 Corinthians 12:12-14: For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many.
One Body, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.
Matthew 9:15: And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.
Children of the Bridgroom are the faithful
Mark 2:19: And Jesus saith to them: Can the children of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
John: 3:26-30: And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.
The friend of the bridegroom is John
Emphasis is mine.
JoeT - Grump himself.
ClassyT,
The bible uses the name "The Church" with Peter as the first leader.
Later, after biblical times other people estanblished what THEY called to be a church. Most of them were very heretical and some where very inaccuate.
So "The Church" added the name "Catholic" to indicate that it was and is the true universal Church.
That is how The Catholic Church came to be known world wide.
That info can be found in just about any actual, authentic, history on the subject.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Yeah just like fish isn't meat.
MODERATOR PLEASE close this ridiculous thread. JoeT and others have degraded it to a Catholics only club and the rest of us are no longer Christians. I for one am insulted!
I can't say what the moderator will do or not, either way I have brought significant and meaningful material to answer Fred's question which was as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
It seems to me that there may be several reasons why Jesus established The Church. How many reasons can you think of as to why he did?
I established that Christ did commission one and only one Church,
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2220650
I explained who made-up the Body of Christ.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2222632
And among other sundry issues, I explained why John 6 concerned the 'Real Presence'
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2209063
It's very likely these views were not met kindly by a great many people, nevertheless they were legitimate arguments. Many, chose not to answer Fred's question directly, rather they found fault that a Catholic should post a view counter to theirs. Nobody has shown the error of my statements as of yet. All are invited to continue to inspect my posts for Catholic errors. I will be happy to continue to discuss them. However, If there is anybody who should cry foul, it should be the Catholics. If there was insult, I'd suggest that those insults are result of prejudices that produce a false sense indignity for argument's sake.
I argued my case with straightforward reasoning, fairly and honestly, without insult. When I didn't agree, I said so, without ad hominem and with supporting views from other Catholics, usually from antiquity. What I also did, when possible, was to provided insight to malformed statements by others; again, without name calling, or whining about the fact that Protestants were allowed to post their opinions.
But, I'll make you a deal; I will not submit a single post, ever again if you, 450donn, will simply ask me to withdraw, here in this open thread – I don't do the PM thing so it needs to be here. No, questions asked, I'll simply never submit a post again; all your Catholic problems will be over.
JoeT
JoeT Like I said comments like this are an insult. I have also made insults toward the RCC here before and I regret those comments. Maybe you do to, maybe not. But if this is your belief maybe you need to sit down and rethink your position. You claimed that the RCC is the bride of Christ excluding all others. So explain how you can come to that and still believe in the ONLY one true word of God. In other words the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
LOL... now grumpy Joe... I put a :) and the end of my post... sos I didn't appear to be a grouch.. so there. Ha haQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
You listed verses in the Bible( that I am BOUND only to) but I never noticed the roman catholic church being mentioned... just the church.. which includes me. Why? Because I am a believer in Christ and his finished work on the cross. In all honesty, I never knew much about the Roman Catholic church until I got on this website. I am part of the body dude... sorry. I may be the armpit to you... lol... but I am THERE. :)
Fred,
I just don't believe that the Catholic church is the bride of Christ.. I believe it includes ALL believers, yes EVEN the catholics that believe. :)
Hope you are doing well by the way and your pain has subsided!!
I do not like that, Joe.
You are entitled to post here and on other threads just like the many other Christians who post here, and there are many, at times, from several different denominations, all Christians.
If a person is not a Catholic does not ever mean or suggest that they are not Christians.
I think that and do admire several here who are not Catholic who are very good Christians to my point of view and I think that is true of others here.
This thread has produced a lot of good thoughtful answers and I do hope it continues to do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I don’t make deliberate insults, but I have rightly been accused of being cynical. Cynicism I do well, it’s just part of what makes me JoeT.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
I have already explained how the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. It is an exclusive ‘club’, but one that has open doors and excludes nobody that is willing to discipline themselves in her doctrines. The simple reason is that there can only be one ‘One True Church of Jesus Christ’ – He only started One Church, and He didn’t really ‘start’ it.
I’ll agree my posts are crude, so I’ll try to outline Catholic understanding of ‘Church’ again for your benefit. I can’t stress this enough, the claim I make isn’t mine, it’s belongs to the 2,000 years of the Catholic faithful; from Christ’s mouth, to the Apostles ear, from Bishop to Bishop, finally reaching me across a distance of two-millennia and half a globe. It’s also found in ‘right reasoning’ in the faith. This is a disciplined way of thinking or reasoning that keeps the faith within the confines of doctrine thereby assuring an objective faith (a faith rooted in God’s absolute Truth). Many Protestants claim Catholics are ‘indoctrinated’, i.e. brainwashed. This, at least in my case, is far from the truth. Instead what Catholic doctrine does is allow one to explore the Truth in matters of morals and faith. The discipline prevents the human tendency to slip into relativism and rationalism. It’s from here that you’ve heard me make the claim that the only way one can literally have sola-scriptura is to do it with Catholic Tradition; because, outside of her organizational rules, the doctrine of faith is strictly Scriptural. And since God’s Truth is immutable, that Truth doesn’t change – we can come to understand it better, but we can’t ‘re-truth’ it.
KINGDOM OF GOD
• Kingdom of God given to Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6), Remember, Moses spoke to God ‘face to face’ – who else in biblical history talked to God ‘face to face’?
• Kingdom in the Messianic age that even kings will serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). (Micah 4:1-2) “(Zechariah 14:8)
• Prophecies in the Old Testament tell of a future Kingdom holding the authority in the rule of the Messiah; Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 sq.
• Christ takes Moses’ Seat Luke 4:21
• THE KING IS HERE is the proclamation, one greater than the Temple. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5).
• Perpetuation of the Law (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17).
• Taken from the Jew and given to the Twelve: “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” (Matt 21:43-44).
• The Kingdom of God is represented by the Apostles within the former Kingdom Luke 17: 20-21. Luke 17:21 seqq is Christ is establishing His Kingdom, not so much as within each of us, but in the middle of Judaism with His first Saints; the Twelve.
• The appointment of an earthly head Matthew 16, the Commissioning of the Church Matthew 28. Everywhere you look in Scripture there is a reference to ‘Kingdom of God,’ ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, and ‘Kingdom of the Father,’ and other similar constructs. Well over 100 references to the establishment of, the training of, the commissioning of, the rules and regulations for a living body, i.e. the Living Church of Christ.
The more I study the connective verses on ‘Kingdom of God’ and the more I read of the Early Fathers, I find that this is precisely what Christ’s mission was; to take the seat of Moses and rule over God’s Church through Peter's Seat.
JoeT
I just thought you went Smiley happy. No it doesn't say 'Catholic', nor does it say 'Trinity'. It's only a name we've come to know her by, Catholic, Roman, Western, Eastern, etc. Whatever you call it it's Christ's Church, she calls herself The Church of Jesus Christ. – Hey! It's just like when you call me Grumpy JoeT, that's not my real name, but it gets my attention!Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
JoeT
JoeT,
Thanks for that clear explanation.
But it does not mean that if people are not members of the Catholic Church that they are not Christians.
I know many people who are Christians and not Catholics.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
inhisservice,
For me to answer...
I believe the Bible is the holy word of God and filled with God's truth.
I'm a Catholic and I know that a great many Catholics believe as I do.
The Catholic Church was built on and because of Bible ans what it says and in fact it is the Church that promulgated the bible what the world now uses.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Well said, JoeT!
Gromitt82
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Well, no I don't think I said "if you are not Catholic you are not Christian." And just for clarification, I’m not saying that if you are non-Catholic you are going to “the-very-bad-place”. What I am saying, and I’ve said this many times, is that the fullness of our Christian faith is found in Catholicism. This isn’t the same rationalism that some seem to have, that one faith is as good as another; rather it looks to recognize God’s Truth wherever you might find it and to reason in that Truth. In matters of faith and morals we can find many Christian Truths in Protestantism, you can find some of God’s Truth in Buddhism, and I suppose you could even find some of God’s Truth in atheism. That Truth is immutable, can never change and it is universal (not just for Catholics, not just for Christians, etc); His promises to man are irrevocable. God’s New Covenant in Christ is the fullness of that Truth insofar as man is able to comprehend, but the entirety of God’s known Truth doesn’t reside in a book. He placed that Truth in what we call today as the Catholic Church, thus she, and she alone, contains that Truth insofar as we men are able to understand. She produced Scripture in her Tradition of that Truth. We weren’t given a book-only, we weren’t given an unseen faith-only, or grace-only, or Christ-only, or glory-only, but rather an organization to minister with those Truths, faiths, graces, commandments revealed by Christ, and the ‘Real Presence of Christ.’ e.g. “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”.
I apologize if I gave the wrong impression in my previous post, I should have been more explicit.
JoeT
Are you sure about my 'total misunderstanding'? Might it be that I'm Catholic because I do understand? I don't think however it would be appropriate to discuss it in this thread. Why don't you start a new thread and I'll join in – if not me, I'm sure other Catholics would be happy to discuss their 'misunderstandings' as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by inhisservice
Holy Scriptures are the Holy Word of God and were written by men who were inspired by God to reveal his Truth. So as to discern Scripture from other writings we look to the authority of the Catholic Church. Thus we find that Roman Catholic Church doctrines harmonize with apostolic teachings (tradition) as well as Holy Scriptures.Quote:
First of all do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? Do you believe that there is truth in it?
Catholics hold that both Scripture and tradition are harmonious creating a foundation for an infallible rule of faith . In so doing, I'm placing my trust in God's Truths and those infallible Christ-given axiomatic Truths. Truth is immutable. If it is Truth for Peter, its Truth for us today, and it will be Truth tomorrow, it can't be destroyed. If you ever wanted to use the precepts of Solo Scriptura as the rule of faith , the only way to achieve a true understanding of Scripture, you need these eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning. Consequently, what comprises apostolic Tradition is usually taken to be papal and council decrees as the legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible; primarily because Scripture allocates this authority to them, i.e. the rule of faith.
Within itself, taken alone, without authentication, the Bible cannot be the sole arbiter of the rule of faith as it makes no claim of authority for itself. This is why, when speaking of doctrine, St. Augustine says, “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes”. St. Augustine, On the Trinity
JoeT
RRC doctrine you call it, yet the Word of God tells us : mark those that come with a doctrine that causes division or contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
You also say Jesus did not start His Church, yet it is written in the Word of God as "MY CHURCH" Without the corner stone there would be no beginning. Without the first begotten, first raised, the first of all.
According to the Word of God all "SCRIPTURE" is profitable as doctrine because it was the inspired word of God. We are throughly furnished by the written inspired Word of God! The man of God may is perfect by the inspired Word of God!
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
This is not speaking of newly formed doctrine or a doctrine made by men, but rather the inspired Word of God.
1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and HIS doctrine be not blasphemed.
Tts 2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
If you do not abide in the "One Hope" that is in One Body, One Spirit, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father then you do not abide in Christ Jesus or with HIS members that gather in unity in Christ Jesus.
Warning:
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.
~in Christ
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:49 AM. |