Tradition

Curtis,

Is Achaia a place in Heaven? If not, then you just through out the first verse of 2 Corinthians in order to make your case.

Thanks again for avoiding my other questions.

God bless,

Grant

 

You've been posting on here, with a new post almost every few minutes, for the last hour. Don't tell me you don't have time. You find time to reply in about two other threads right now, but you can't answer some simple questions about beliefs you claim to hold?

No, you have time, or you wouldn't be posting right now. You are avoiding them. If you respond to this, without responding to those questions, you realize you'll make yourself a liar. Because you'd have the time.

God bless,

Grant

 

I am glad to see that you are helping someone out. But the fact of the matter is that you have still continue to post non stop on two threads on this board for the last hour+, and it is only specific questions that you are not answering, while others are being addressed.

Number one, I have attempted in various ways to answer that question on that particular thread. But you are correct: when you do not have the decency to be respectful in the way you ask the question, that makes ME question the sincerity you have for understanding our position. If you wanted to understand, you would ask the question properly. If you wish to make fun of it, you would ask it repeatedly imporperly. You follow the latter pattern. And I will not answer a question that contains obvious errors.

It is 2 Corinthians, and he does not speak in the future tense. "the holy ones in Achaia." That's present tense. They ARE holy. Paul calls them holy in his address.

Correct. Which is why we must strive for holiness here on earth and avoid these sins.

Maybe you can help me out and answer all of my other questions. In regards to this, if individual lay people can be called holy, why can elders not?

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Bible-belted,

You wrote, "but they can't tell you what the RCC's official teaching is."

I know that is your opinion, but you are incorrect.

I would direct you to Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Article 6:

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."

Hi Brother Curtis,

You wrote, "Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven."

Jesus is clearly using a literary device that we know all so very well as hyperbole. Only a Fundamentalist, who does violence to the text by affirming only what he reads literally and not literarily, will come out with such an interpretation as you have presented in this thread. Of course, when it comes to Jesus saying "This is my body", you will change your interpretive stance, which is quite convenient, for you.

Since Paul was a Catholic, I'm sure you can appreciate his violation of Christ's clear, Fundamentalist command when Paul writes, "For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (1 Cor 4:15)

Oh No Paul!!

It looks like Paul, a faithful Catholic, is a bad cookie.

yours, in Christ,

Carson

 

Carson,

The door swings both ways on that claim. I'm sure your realized the irony of your statement, ". . . who does violence to the text by affirming only what he reads literally and not literarily," after the fact, which explains the last comment in the paragraph.

For some reason, I don't think Paul was aware that he was Catholic. Just like Peter clearly never realized he was the First in a long line of popes. Hmmmmmmm . . .

 

For some reason, I don't think Paul was aware that he was Catholic.

Well, I would say that Paul believed he was a part of the true Christian church, wouldn't you?

And Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Just like Peter clearly never realized he was the First in a long line of popes.

When Jesus declared Peter blessed in Matthew 16:16-19, Peter knew that Jesus, the Davidic King, was appointing him as the Davidic Prime Minister or Vizier, which would involve a successive office.

That is, if you're familiar with why Jesus is the Christ, why Jesus is the son of David, why Peter, in Acts 2, describes Jesus' ascension as a heavenly enthronement on David's throne, and why Jesus uses the same language in Mt 16:16-19 that is used by Isaiah to Shebn'ah in Isaiah 22:20-22 when Shebnah, Hezekiah's (the Davidic King) Prime Minister, was to be replaced by Eliakim, the new Prime Minister.

Peter knew exactly what was happening, and he knew that he was the first in a long line of viziers in the kingdom of heaven, which is coterminous with the Church, according to Matthew and his Gospel.

With all that said, the "Church" is truly herself in her final esacthological reality; however, the portion of the Church on Earth at present is a pilgrim on her way to her heavenly homeland, and she shares fellowship with her members who currently reign in heaven alongside the King who is the head of her.

 

Hi Bro. Curtis,

Apostolic succession is a doctrine I reject. Revelation tells of twelve stones, representing each of the original apostles.

And why 12?

Hint: there were 12 Princes who ruled over the 12 Tribes of Israel

And why 70 elders?

Hint: Moses had 70 elders help him in dealing with the national affairs of Israel

Jesus saw himself as a New Moses reconstituting a New Israel in his Ministry.. and if you read about Israel in the Old Testament, you'll notice that there were indeed visible authority figures who were succeeded.

And all the original apostles were eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection. Therefore there could be no succession.

It's precisely because the original apostles were eyewitnesses that we need succession.. in order to guard what they saw, heard, and were taught!

And you can't call the decrees of Popes and magisterium(sp?) divine decree, for the above mentioned reason. They are sinful men

So? The Apostles were sinful men too. You have proven too much.

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus, speaking for the entire Church, tells us what the whole of non-Gnostic orthodox Christianity believed with regards to Apostolic Succession.

Living in the same Church that Christ founded,

Carson

 

Still waiting on a response.

Again, how do you know you are correct?

What gives, Curtis? I keep asking you very easy questions and you keep dodging them.

 

Ron, you know I think Christ was righteous. At least you should. I keep pointing to him.

Ron is showing how your quote from Romans 3 proves too much, with your own individual, private interpretation of what Paul is saying. I suggest looking the Psalm, that Paul is quoting, in its original context, and then discover why Paul quotes that Psalm, which is speaking of a certain group of people when the Psalmist writes, "No one is righteous, no, not one."

 

Curtis,

On the father thingy, read Acts 7:2 "Brethern and FATHERS...", Acts 21:20, 22:1, Romans 4:16-17, 1 Cor 4:14-15 "I became your FATHER in Christ thru the Gospel, Heb 12:7-9, 1 jn 2:13-14 for starters and then come back and tell me if Jesus meant Mt. 23:9 in a legalistic sense.

Also do tell me why God commands the Jews to make images in Ex 25 if he has expressly and completely forbidden it in Ex 20. If you do the math, 20 is before 25.

Thanks.

 

Romans 3:10 As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one:

Why didn't the writer make this exception then?

Could it be that your interpretation of Romans 3:10 is not correct?

How do you know that your interpretation of Romans 3:10 is correct and any other is wrong?

(This is just a modified version of the same question that I have already asked several times, but I'm hoping if I make it specific to some verse you will not avoid it yet again.)

 

T2U,

As I asked you before, how do you know your interpretation or the RCC's interpretations are right?

 

Curtis, How about this. The context of the first commandent stuff about idols (which your second should be a part of) is making an idol for the purpose of worshipping and attributing the benefits of the rain, the sun, life, food, and clothing, etc. etc. to, and offering sacrifice before. I don't have any statue in my home that is for this purpose.

 

Curtis,

"And you can't call the decrees of Popes and magisterium(sp?) divine decree, for the above mentioned reason. They are sinful men, and have no business speaking for God, 'cept of course, when they read from HIS Holy word. "

Then you gotta throw away Peter's two books because he catered to the Jews in Galtians. You have to throw away all of Pauls stuff because he said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not, I do". He's a sinner so he can't possibly write divine decrees. That is what you said.