Check out some similar questions!

De Maria · Aug 11, 2008, 04:32 PM

N0help4u ,

Comments on this post
N0help4u agrees:... AND YET to be proven!!

Now you are siding with an atheist? Lol!! :eek:

Hey, Ordinary Guy, unless you have suddenly been born again, I suggest you take your comments to the member discussions where the Atheists belong. That is how the moderators of this forum have decided to handle trolls and Christian baiters.

And to tell you the truth, the Christian forum is a lot more enjoyable without you. Thanks moderators!!

Sincerely,

De Maria

ScottRC · Aug 11, 2008, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by De Maria

Now you are siding with an atheist? Lol!!!:eek:

Hehe... good point... and I'm evidence that non-Catholics can certainly be "persuaded"... the circular reasoning of sola scriptura led me out of the Protestant faith... praise God!

Keep on posting De Maria!

De Maria · Aug 11, 2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by ScottRC

Hehe... good point... and I'm evidence that non-Catholics can certainly be "persuaded".... the circular reasoning of sola scriptura led me out of the Protestant faith... praise God!

Keep on posting De Maria!

Thanks be to God!!

I don't have anything against Cradle Catholics (Well, actually, I was once one). They are wonderful and their steadfastness is worthy of emulation. But God knew what he was doing, when like Joseph of many colors, He allowed us to be drawn to a different world in order that we might think about why we believe and what is the value of it.

Like you, I was a non-Catholic, I was born Catholic, converted to atheism and reverted after a short stint trying to believe Sola Scriptura. The problem was, I couldn't understand the Scriptures ALONE. I mean, I needed help. And I couldn't keep lying to myself. So here I am, back in the Church that I once despised. Isn't God wonderful!!

Keep up the good work Scott!!

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3 · Aug 11, 2008, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by De Maria

That is an incomplete understanding of Scripture. From the time of Moses, God has put authority in men that men may trust in man.

Men are put in a position of limited authority in the church under God. We are to trust them only so far as they are following God faithfully. Nowhere does scripture say that we are to follow men and trust them blindly.

And this is what Jesus has done with Peter and the Church. Peter literally means Rock. And the only Rock mentioned in Scripture is Jesus.

You claim it, but scripture says otherwise. This is an example of where I must trust God's word over man. Peter means "stone" BTW. Then you argue against yourself in the last sentence.

Correct. All grace flows through the Body of Christ.

All grace comes from Jesus. The Roman catholic church is not the body of Christ. That is blasphemous. There may be members of the body of Christ within the Roman Church, but it is NOT the body of Christ.

That is correct. That is straight from Scripture.

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

I missed where it says that we are made God. Could you please point that out specifically. I am suspecting that you may be extrapolating on that verse a bit.

Scripture says it does:

1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Read the context. This is referring to baptism as an anti-type of that which saves - the blood of Jesus.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

The Catholic Church.

As I pointed out, the one true church is not a denomination, not yours or anyone's denomination.

Only if you twist the Scripture:

I quoted it. If you don't like it, that is not my issue.

If membership in the Kingdom of Heaven does not save, then membership in a Church does not save either:

Interesting - you don't think membership in the Kingdom of heaven means that you are saved.

But the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ can be proven both Scripturally and historically.

Odd - neither you nor anyone else has been able to show this to date. Show me where denominations are found in the NT.

Why yes. If Jesus Christ had not established a Church, there would be no salvation. All the graces of Jesus Christ flow through His Church.

So you think that if Constantine had not started your denomination, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would have been a dead loss.

[QUOTE]That is your misunderstanding of the Scripture. The Scripture is clear that he who betrayed Christ did not believe in transubstantiation which Christ had just explained:

John 6 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

Why do Roman Catholics never read past that verse to see how Jesus explained it?

JoeT777 · Aug 11, 2008, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by De Maria

Thanks be to God!!!

I don't have anything against Cradle Catholics (Well, actually, I was once one). They are wonderful and their steadfastness is worthy of emulation. But God knew what he was doing, when like Joseph of many colors, He allowed us to be drawn to a different world in order that we might think about why we believe and what is the value of it.

Like you, I was a non-Catholic, I was born Catholic, converted to atheism and reverted after a short stint trying to believe Sola Scriptura. The problem was, I couldn't understand the Scriptures ALONE. I mean, I needed help. And I couldn't keep lying to myself. So here I am, back in the Church that I once despised. Isn't God wonderful!!!

Keep up the good work Scott!!!

Sincerely,

De Maria

The following is a rendering of the above quote according to sola read-ology:

De Maria and Scott are going to throw mud at JoeT because he was raised in a barn painted with “See Rock City” in multicolor letters!

JoeT

ordinaryguy · Aug 12, 2008, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by De Maria

Now you are siding with an atheist?

I'm not an atheist, I just think your Catholic God is way too small.

De Maria · Aug 12, 2008, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I'm not an atheist,

You're not an atheist?

You're a believer?

Ok then I guess that qualifies you to join this discussion. Welcome.

If you addressed the OP, I must have missed it. Where do you stand on Sola Scriptura?

I just think your Catholic God is way too small.

Perhaps, but this thread is not about what you call "your Catholic God". Its about:

How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.

So, where do you stand on that issue?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria · Aug 12, 2008, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Ok - well I've got most of the weekend to research through my history books. Which Eusebius are we discussing; as I recall one was a bishop another was a historian but lived a hundred years or so apart?

JoeT

PS: Newman: "the Church of the Fathers might be corrupted into Popery, never into Protestantism."

Joe,

This is from Cardinal Newman's treatise on the development of doctrine. The new religion of which he speaks is Christianity. It is not one developed by Constantine but one which Constantine believes and with which he supplants the old Roman religion. In other words, he gets rid of Caesar worship and replaces it with the true religion of faith in Christ. Which is already in that day and age known as the Catholic Church.

Here's the entire document:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/de.../chapter8.html

That site was working when I used it. But it didn't work just now. Maybe its just temporary.

I happened to notice an article in This Rock when I was googling it though:
USING NEWMAN'S ARGUMENT TODAY (This Rock: February 1996)

I haven't read it yet, but it is probably worthwhile. They haven't disappointed me yet.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria · Aug 12, 2008, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Tj3

Men are put in a position of limited authority in the church under God. We are to trust them only so far as they are following God faithfully. Nowhere does scripture say that we are to follow men and trust them blindly.

That's true. Nor does the Church teach that we must follow Churchmen blindly. However, Scripture does say that the Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that we must hear the Church or be treated as heathen (Matt 18:17).

Therefore, we believe that the Church is infallible and that we must obey her precepts.

And the Scripture also tells us to obey our leaders in the Church:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,...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.

So, based on the Scriptures, I think we have a reasonable attitude of our relationship towards the Church.

You claim it, but scripture says otherwise. This is an example of where I must trust God's word over man. Peter means "stone" BTW. Then you argue against yourself in the last sentence.

No, Peter means "rock". The idea that petra means large stone and that petros means small stone is, according to Greek experts, a misunderstanding. If, they say, St. Matthew wanted to say that Peter was a small stone, he would have said, "lithos".

Petros is simply the male version of the Greek noun for "rock". Petra being the feminine.
March/April 1997 - Nuts & Bolts

All grace comes from Jesus. The Roman catholic church is not the body of Christ. That is blasphemous. There may be members of the body of Christ within the Roman Church, but it is NOT the body of Christ.

Well its either your Church which is the Body of Christ or ours. But it can't be both. Isn't it you who said that the Catholic Church was described in Rev 17. That means you believe the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

But I have proven from Scripture that the Catholic Church is described in the Body of the New Testament because we keep:

The Traditions and the Scriptures (2 Thess 2:14)
The Mass (Acts 2:46)
The belief that the Church is infallible (1 Tim 3:15)
The belief that we should obey the Church (Matt 18:17)
The belief in one Shepherd placed here by Jesus in His name (Matt 16:18)
The belief in faith and works (James 2:20)

And many other distinctives which put together describe the Catholic Church even today.

I missed where it says that we are made God. Could you please point that out specifically. I am suspecting that you may be extrapolating on that verse a bit.

Not me. That teaching is from the Church Fathers:
St. Clement of Alexandria:

The Word of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

For he was made man that we might be made God…and…he himself has made us sons of the Father, and deified men by becoming himself man.

St. Gregory the Theologian:

Let us become as Christ is, since Christ became as we are; let us become gods for his sake, since he became man for our sake.

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

…the Word became incarnate so that by becoming as we are, he might make us as he is.

St. John Chrysostom:

He became Son of man, who was God’s own Son, in order that he might make the sons of men to be children of God.

St. Ephrem the Syrian:

He gave us divinity, we gave him humanity.

St. Hilary of Poitiers (in the West):

For when God was born to be man the purpose was not that the Godhead should be lost, but that, the Godhead remaining, man should be born to be god.

St. Ambrose of Milan:

For [the Son] took on him that which he was not that he might hide that which he was; he hid that which he was that he might be tempted in it, and that which he was not might be redeemed, in order that he might call us by means of that which he was not to that which he was.

St. Augustine of Hippo:

God wanted to be the Son of Man and he wanted men to be the Sons of God.

Pope St. Leo the Great (5th century):

[The Savior] was made the son of man, so that we could be the sons of God…and…He united humanity to himself in such a way that he remained God, unchangeable. He imparted divinity to human beings in such a way that he did not destroy, but enriched them, by glorification.

Even in Protestant writers…

Martin Luther in a Christmas sermon:

For the Word becomes flesh precisely so that the flesh may become word. In other words: God becomes man so that man may become God.

John Calvin, rather eloquently:

This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.
A Common Faith « Glory to God for All Things

Read the context. This is referring to baptism as an anti-type of that which saves - the blood of Jesus.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

Something that is symbolized or represented by a type
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antitype

It's a good thing you don't know what antitype means. Otherwise you would know that you have just proved my case. The type represents the antitype. The type is the sign. The antitype is the real thing.

Therefore, the flood is the sign which points to Baptism, the real thing.

As I pointed out, the one true church is not a denomination, not yours or anyone's denomination.

Again, because you don't really understand the meaning of the term "denomination."

I quoted it. If you don't like it, that is not my issue.

You quoted it then you misrepresented what you quoted. That is your issue.

Interesting - you don't think membership in the Kingdom of heaven means that you are saved.

Scripture tells us so:
Philippians 2 12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

Odd - neither you nor anyone else has been able to show this to date. Show me where denominations are found in the NT.

I think I've done so repeatedly. The fact that you don't like it is not my issue.

So you think that if Constantine had not started your denomination, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would have been a dead loss.

TJ, Are you still beating your wife?

What a loaded question! First of all, Constantine did not start the Catholic Church. And it is you who are calling Jesus' sacrifice a dead loss, not I.

Why do Roman Catholics never read past that verse to see how Jesus explained it?

But I've explained it to you thoroughly many times.

Here we go again:

Jesus always refers to His flesh in the Bread of Life discourse:
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.

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

Of course if His flesh avails to eternal life, then His flesh profits much. Notice that He doesn't say that His flesh profiteth nothing. He says,

When He says 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth:THE flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

So, it is clear, Jesus flesh profiteth much, ordinary flesh or "the" flesh profiteth nothing.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Wondergirl · Aug 12, 2008, 09:38 AM

Well its either your Church which is the Body of Christ or ours.

ALL believers in Christ are the Body of Christ--not just Catholic, not just Lutheran, not just independent Baptist, not just free-ranging Christians--ALL believers.

ordinaryguy · Aug 12, 2008, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by De Maria

If you addressed the OP, I must have missed it. Where do you stand on Sola Scriptura?

JoeT777 · Aug 12, 2008, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by De Maria

Joe,

This is from Cardinal Newman's treatise on the development of doctrine. The new religion of which he speaks is Christianity. It is not one developed by Constantine but one which Constantine believes and with which he supplants the old Roman religion. In other words, he gets rid of Caesar worship and replaces it with the true religion of faith in Christ. Which is already in that day and age known as the Catholic Church.

Here's the entire document:

Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 8

That site was working when I used it. But it didn't work just now. Maybe its just temporary.

I happened to notice an article in This Rock when I was googling it though:
USING NEWMAN'S ARGUMENT TODAY (This Rock: February 1996)

I haven't read it yet, but it is probably worthwhile. They haven't disappointed me yet.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Boy, talk about being dense, I walked all over this the other night – but in my defense, I didn't have time to do anything but scan through it. I have difficulty with Newman because I can't ever figure out if I'm reading a pre or post conversion piece – at least until I'm half way thought it. Anglican and Catholic thought as so close on so many things it's had to tell sometimes. Unless prompted in advance, you tend to skim over the differences unless you know what to look for.

I'll read it tonight.

Thanks,

JoeT

Tj3 · Aug 12, 2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by De Maria

That's true. Nor does the Church teach that we must follow Churchmen blindly. However, Scripture does say that the Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that we must hear the Church or be treated as heathen (Matt 18:17).

Right - the problem is that you think that only your denomination is the church. That is, at very least, arrogant, but certainly unscriptural.

No, Peter means "rock".

Biblical Greek language experts disagree with you. I'll listen to the experts over your pprivate interpretation/translation.

Well its either your Church which is the Body of Christ or ours.

The body of believers is not a denomination.

The Traditions and the Scriptures (2 Thess 2:14)

Scripture says not to go beyond what is written

The Mass (Acts 2:46)

Not ion scripture.

The belief that the Church is infallible (1 Tim 3:15)

Not a denomination

The belief that we should obey the Church (Matt 18:17)

Not your denomination

The belief in one Shepherd placed here by Jesus in His name (Matt 16:18)

Your private interpretation not in agreement with the context of scripture.

The belief in faith and works (James 2:20)

Your private interpretation which is not aligned with Biblical Greek.

So how can a true church be so off course on so many point?

Not me. That teaching is from the Church Fathers:

You follow traditions of men.

Therefore, the flood is the sign which points to Baptism, the real thing.

Sigh! You can lead a horse to water...

TJ, Are you still beating your wife?

Now you are into abusive and libellous mis-representation? Got a good lawyer?

First of all, Constantine did not start the Catholic Church.

Even your Cartdinal John Henry Newman agrees, as werll as many historians, catholic and otherwise.

But I've explained it to you thoroughly many times.

Once again, I accept what scripture says in context, not your private interpretation.

N0help4u · Aug 12, 2008, 11:48 AM

Jesus is πέτρα {Petra} The Rock and Peter {Petros} means a littler rock or a stone.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art pet'ros (a stone), and upon this petra (πέτρα, ROCK, meaning upon Jesus Christ Himself) I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Tj3 · Aug 12, 2008, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Jesus is πέτρα {Petra} The Rock and Peter {Petros} means a littler rock or a stone.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art pet'ros (a stone), and upon this petra (πέτρα, ROCK, meaning upon Jesus Christ Himself) I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Yep. Throughout scripture, the Rock is Jesus.

JoeT777 · Aug 12, 2008, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Jesus is πέτρα {Petra} The Rock and Peter {Petros} means a littler rock or a stone.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art pet'ros (a stone), and upon this petra (πέτρα, ROCK, meaning upon Jesus Christ Himself) I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Yes, He built the Mystical body of Christ which has become known as the Roman Catholic Church on a stone. Makes His miracles even more amazing doesn’t it?

N0help4u · Aug 12, 2008, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Yes, He built the Mystical body of Christ which has become known as the Roman Catholic Church on a stone. Makes His miracles even more amazing doesn’t it?

NO! HOW??

Wondergirl · Aug 12, 2008, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by JoeT777

the Mystical body of Christ

The Body of Christ is all believers... so many passages... how about 1 Cor. 12 to start...

De Maria · Aug 12, 2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Jesus is πέτρα {Petra} The Rock and Peter {Petros} means a littler rock or a stone.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art pet'ros (a stone), and upon this petra (πέτρα, ROCK, meaning upon Jesus Christ Himself) I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

No. Petros is the masculine form of the noun. Petra the feminine. In order to understand the verse you must understand the patriarchal Jewish culture. If Jesus were to call Simon, Petra, it would be tantamount to accusing him of being homosexual. At the very least, it would be belittling and insulting.

An equivalent in English would be to call a man Johnette instead of John. In fact, Petra is the feminine name for Peter even in English:

Petra - Origin and Meaning of the name Petra at BabyNames.com

Peter - Origin and Meaning of the name Peter at BabyNames.com

Finally, Bible scholars agree that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Therefore He didn't say,
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.

That is the Apostolic translation of Jesus' Aramaic words into Greek. Jesus actually said, And I say to thee: That thou art Cephas; and upon this cephas I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We can confirm this from Scripture where Jesus first used the name Cephas in reference to Simon:

John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Sincerely,

De Maria

N0help4u · Aug 12, 2008, 03:16 PM

The Spiritual Rock in the wilderness

The KJV used the Petra form for Jesus.