James the Brother of Jesus Ossuary

[raymond]

Raymond>>>>
I am still waiting to hear how thankful you are to those medaeval Catholic and Orthodox monks who
kept your Bible alive for you. I have a feeling I might be waiting a long time.<<<<


Frank>>>>
II Tim. 3:16,17 is so simple most schoolboys can understand it. A number of men have collected, and translated the Greek documents. I am thankful to God for the complete written revelation that makes men complete unto all good works.

....I am indebted to Christ, not to the Catholic church. In fact, your teaching magisterium has failed to provide anything other than division. Have you ever heard of the Old Catholic church? Well, so much for a magisterium. NO sarcasm, just the truth. <<<<

Dear Frank,

When you say you have no debt to the medieval Catholic and Orthodox monks,from whose manuscripts comes 100% of your modern Bible, you remind me of myself when I was a little one. My parents gave me everything I needed, but I wasn't thankful because I had never given it a second thought.

I don't believe God is somehow threatened if we give honor to mere humans for giving us something precious. Whether that might be gratitude to our parents for our lives and our upbringing,or to Mary for giving us our Savior, or to the Catholic Church for giving us the Bible, or to our armed forces for letting us live normal lives while they risk theirs.

I am afraid this pretty well sums up our disagreement. Catholics are pro-gratitude and you seem to be anti.

your brother

 

[Frank]

Raymond:
I am for the will of God. I am grateful to God through Jesus Christ for all blessings. The word of God say to give thanks to God through or by him. Col. 3:17.
God inspired the word. II Pet. 1:20,21, II Tim. 3:16,17. God provided the power. John 14:26;15:26;16:13;Luke 24:44-51. God provided the penman. Rev. 1:11. God provided the passage for the truth from city to city. Col. 4:16, I Thes. 5:26,27.
I am thankful for the truth and those who proclaim it. Phil.1.
All of these things took place before the invention of the Old Catholic church.

 

[raymond]

Frank>>>I am for the will of God. I am grateful to God through Jesus Christ for all blessings. The word of God say to give thanks to God through or by him. Col. 3:17.
God inspired the word. II Pet. 1:20,21, II Tim. 3:16,17. God provided the power. John 14:26;15:26;16:13;Luke 24:44-51. God provided the penman. Rev. 1:11. God provided the passage for the truth from city to city. Col. 4:16, I Thes. 5:26,27.
I am thankful for the truth and those who proclaim it. Phil.1.
All of these things took place before the invention of the Old Catholic church.<<<<

Frank, getting a little back to the focus of the thread--I am more guilty than you are for wandering-- as long as you are listing things you are thankful for. Could you at least say you are thankful TO Mary for giving us our Savior?

It would hearten me mightily to hear you say that......

your brother

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Frank:
Raymond:
but Jesus did say," these are WRITTEN that you might believe." John 20:31.

You are kidding, right? Jesus never said that. John did.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Frank:
In fact, your teaching magisterium has failed to provide anything other than division. Have you ever heard of the Old Catholic church? Well, so much for a magisterium. NO sarcasm, just the truth.

This is about the most nonsensicle thing you have said so far in this thread (though there are others). Because divisions from the Church have occurred, it is the fault of the Church? WHA? Don't even try to back that one up, because you'll just have to backpeddle.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Frank]

Grant:
John recorded 20:30,31, the words used were from Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. II Pet. 1:20,21, John 16:13. NO KIDDING!
John was speaking as the oracle of God. I Pet. 4:11. I am sure God usd his vocabulary. Are yuou claiming John mispoke? Are you claiming John was speaking his opinion, and not the words Christ authorized through the Holy Spirit? The inspired writers spoke as the representatives of Christ. Thus, when they spoke it was with the authority of Christ. Mat. 28;18-20. NO KIDDING!

 

[Frank]

Grant:
Which vatican council do I follow, one or two? Which of the innumerable papal bulls does one adhere to? Which catachism does one obey? Your magisterium backpeddles and contradcits itself. If they are " inspired " why the need for constant revison. Why the division in the church? You claim the pope and the magisterium are the answer to these problems. However, their very own decrees betray them.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Frank:
Grant:
Which vatican council do I follow, one or two? Which of the innumerable papal bulls does one adhere to? Which catachism does one obey? Your magisterium backpeddles and contradcits itself. If they are " inspired " why the need for constant revison. Why the division in the church? You claim the pope and the magisterium are the answer to these problems. However, their very own decrees betray them.

Frank,

Vatican I and II are not contradictory. We follow all of them. (the councils). The official Catechisms are not contradictory. Is it contradictory to say that a rubber ball is round and red and then later to describe the ball by its refractory properties with regard to light and it's elasticity constant. Now if you can show me some decrees that contradict eachother, i.e. some good substantial evidence to what you are saying then we will have something to work with. Be aware however it must be with regard to faith and morals. I don't care if a Pope got a stock market pick wrong (not that I think they have ever tried to pick the stock market). Be aware also that what may seem contradictory when taken in context is not. One pope decried democracy, while another (I think it was Pius XII) praised democracy.
Contradiction? Hardly, one was talking about the democracy brought about by the French Revolution which was anti-God and disobedient, while the other was talking about American Democracy.

There is division in the Church because there are wolves among the sheep. Simple enough and quite biblical.


So Frank, since you are an expert on V I and V II give me one "contradiction" between the two councils that if you were a Catholic would leave you wondering which way to go. Surely you can do that.


Blessings

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Frank:
Grant:
John recorded 20:30,31, the words used were from Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. II Pet. 1:20,21, John 16:13. NO KIDDING!
John was speaking as the oracle of God. I Pet. 4:11. I am sure God usd his vocabulary. Are yuou claiming John mispoke? Are you claiming John was speaking his opinion, and not the words Christ authorized through the Holy Spirit? The inspired writers spoke as the representatives of Christ. Thus, when they spoke it was with the authority of Christ. Mat. 28;18-20. NO KIDDING!

I never said that these words were not "authorized" by God, but no, I do not believe that they are God's vocabulary. God does not have a vocabulary. He inspired St. John to write this book, and everything that He wanted in it is in there, in the language of John. This is why all four Gospels, written by four different people, sound very different; because the men used their own vocabulary and writing style to convey an inspired message. God is the inspirer, not the dictator.

I say again: John physically wrote that, not Jesus. It is not appropriate to say that "Jesus said" that, as Jesus, the man-God, did not say that. John did, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Frank:
Grant:
Which vatican council do I follow, one or two? Which of the innumerable papal bulls does one adhere to? Which catachism does one obey? Your magisterium backpeddles and contradcits itself. If they are " inspired " why the need for constant revison. Why the division in the church? You claim the pope and the magisterium are the answer to these problems. However, their very own decrees betray them.

All talk, and not a shred of evidence. Hopefully this is not typical, Frank.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Frank]

Grant:
Which do I accept?
1. A bishop must be the husband of one wife and have believing children. I Tim. 3:1-11. Or, the bishop does not have to be married or have believing children. Catholic church.
2. Not to forbid marriage,and the abstaining from meats. I Tim. 4:1-6. Or forbid to marry and abstain from meats. Catholic church.
3. Call no man father. Matthew. Or, call men father. Catholic church.
4. Jesus has all authority. Mat, 28:18-20. Or, the church has authority. Catholic church.
5. Church organization. I Tim. 3:1-11, Titus 1:4-9. Elders, Deacons. Or, Pope and magisterium. Catholic church.

I do not claim to be an expert on any subject. However, if one is complete unto every good work, through the inspired word, he needs nothing else. II Tim. 3:16,17. If one is complete, he does not need REVISIONS or BUllS. if one is comlete, he does not need additions such as catechism one or two. This is true unless they have changed the meaning of the words Complete, Every , All , and Scripture. Who knows, you may have changed the meaning of these words.

 

[thessalonian]

Frank,

Here are your words...


A bishop must be the husband of one wife and have believing children.

Not to forbid marriage,and the abstaining from meats.

Call no man father.

Jesus has all authority.

Church organization. I Tim. 3:1-11, Titus 1:4-9. Elders, Deacons.

Now is this the Catechism of Frank because I don't see these words specifically in scripture as a self contained entity, apart from it's context. You have changed words. Is it a Frank Bull (likely so) that Jesus has all authority and so there is not other authority. Or should we consider that Jesus has all authority and so he gives it as is apperent in the verse you cite? If you can attach your own words to the scriptures Frank, surely you would not deny the Catholic Church the same and also you might want to look at the context of scripture with regard to other scripture. For it it is wrong to call anyone father I am sure that you call your own paternal male parent Dad. Of course that was a nasty thing God did saying to honor our FATHER and mother in Exodus and then ripping that nasty habit right out from under us in Matt 23:9. Of course Paul immediately goes right out and violates this command in 1 Cor when he says:

Corinthians 4:15
For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the
gospel.

Gasp. Your scriptual exegisis is simplistic and you hold on to it with great pride in yourself.

I am not surprized that you turned down a challenge above regarding V I and V II. Seems like you should be able to back up your statements with facts but you are wise not to take the challenge.

Blessings

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:

If the Catholic church does not teach these things, deny it. I wish you would. However, you know as well as you know your name, the Catholic church adheres to these teachings that clearly contradict the teachings of the word of God.

Therefore, since the word of God does not proclaim the same teachings as the Catholic church, tell me, from whence they came? And, by whose authority?

By the way, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your vatican council proclaim that the Catholic must adhere to the tenants written in your catechisms. NO BULL!

If you cannot recall the reference, I will find the reference and page number for the statement.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Frank:
Thessalonian:

If the Catholic church does not teach these things, deny it. I wish you would. However, you know as well as you know your name, the Catholic church adheres to these teachings that clearly contradict the teachings of the word of God.

Therefore, since the word of God does not proclaim the same teachings as the Catholic church, tell me, from whence they came? And, by whose authority?

By the way, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your vatican council proclaim that the Catholic must adhere to the tenants written in your catechisms. NO BULL!

If you cannot recall the reference, I will find the reference and page number for the statement.

Frank, the only thing I will deny is that you have a real grasp of scripture. That is quite apparent since you completely failed to adress the father issue. The rest of these issues and why you are wrong in your understanding about them are very similar. And it has alot to do with your understanding of the phrase "word of God". Could you find me a verse that equates this exclusively to scripture as you use it? Another challenge for you Frank.

There are no tenants in the Catechism I have any problem with Frank. And they are not in conflict with scripture except in your limited, fallible understanding of scripture. Do you understand scripture infallibly Frank? Where are you in error? I wonder if you would "recieve the word readily" like the Berearns did or hold to your own rigid interprutations that you pridefully grasp with every clinging breathe as the thessaonlians in Acts 17 did. Note in Acts 17 that Paul didn't hand them a book. He gave them the spoken word which they found support for in the written word.

Frank, I find it interesting that you daily contradict all the other "bible believing" scripture alone Christians on this board. I also find it interesting that I look quite frequently at the Catholics posts on this board. Time prevents me from reading them all but you talk about division in the Catholic Church and yet I find I agree with every post written by Grant and Ron and Brother Ed and Carson and I have never met these guys and don't even live in the same state. Now how can this be? I tell you how. Frank has set himself up as Pope over his own little denomination. Put a name on the door and get yourself some wicker baskets on a stick and you'll be able to put bread on the table Frank.

Blessings Frank.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Frank:
Thessalonian:

If the Catholic church does not teach these things, deny it. I wish you would. However, you know as well as you know your name, the Catholic church adheres to these teachings that clearly contradict the teachings of the word of God.

Therefore, since the word of God does not proclaim the same teachings as the Catholic church, tell me, from whence they came? And, by whose authority?

By the way, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your vatican council proclaim that the Catholic must adhere to the tenants written in your catechisms. NO BULL!

If you cannot recall the reference, I will find the reference and page number for the statement.

By the way Frank, if Paul were telling those in Timothy 2 Tim 3:16 only to use scripture then why did he contradict himself in 2 Tim 2:2:

2 Timothy 2:2
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Heard means oral. Of course this is further suppported in 2 Thes 2:15 where he says to hold fast to both the oral and written.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Now here I think you can assume that written is scripture. But apparently that which is communcated orally is authoritative also. I am sure you have been asked this questions and have a weasel way out but I would like for you to humor me with it anyway.

God bless.

 

[Southeastbaptist]

Hi Thess,

For if it is wrong to call anyone father I am sure that you call your own paternal male parent Dad. Of course that was a nasty thing God did saying to honor our FATHER and mother in Exodus and then ripping that nasty habit right out from under us in Matt 23:9. Of course Paul immediately goes right out and violates this command in 1 Cor when he says:

Why do you make appear that Apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ contradict each other. You even went on to say that Apostle Paul goes right out and violates the command of Christ.

But i think Apostle Paul is not violating the command of Christ since He is not telling the Corinthians to call him "Father" but only emphasizing that he was the one who bring them up in the Lord. On the other hand, the Lord Jesus is commanding the disciples not to call any man "Father" in the spiritual meaning of the word.

To call the pope holy father is a total blasphemy since only God the Father is called by this name.

Jn.17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy fatherHoly Father, keep through thine own name those hom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

But maybe you are right to call the pope "Holy Father" since He claimed to be somewhat the representative of God here on earth.

"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."

--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882

We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

--POPE LEO XIII

Cited in Double Cross by Chick Publications, p. 27
quoting THE GREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII
p. 304, Benziger Brothers (1903)

 

[raymond]

Hello Frank,

It looks like you have your hands full, but when you get a chance, I would like your opinion about something I asked Johnv.....

raymond>>>>I would like your opinion about this brother-cousin controversy. Matthew lists James, Joses, Simon and Jude as brothers of Our Lord. Later on, in Matt.27:56 he mentions Mary 'mother of James and Joses' as among those beholding 'afar off'.

Do think these two, James and Joses are the same people in both verses? If they are, then their mother is not very likely Mary, Jesus' mother, as we know she was at the foot of the Cross. Besides that Matthew doesn't qualify Mary, Jesus' mother, when he names her. He does this with other Marys to distinguish them from her. Do you think this 'Mary mother of James and Joses' was our Lord's mother?
<<<<<<<<

see ya soon, your brother

 

[thessalonian]

"Why do you make appear that Apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ contradict each other. You even went on to say that Apostle Paul goes right out and violates the command of Christ. "

Now do you really think that is what I am doing. No I did not say he violated the command. I said Frank misunderstands the command.


"But i think Apostle Paul is not violating the command of Christ since He is not telling the Corinthians to call him "Father" but only emphasizing that he was the one who bring them up in the Lord. On the other hand, the Lord Jesus is commanding the disciples not to call any man "Father" in the spiritual meaning of the word."

Ah, I see so it is okay for us to call ourselves father? Seems to me "no man" would be not even yourself if the stict interpruation is correct, since you must admit Paul himself is a man. Paul was calling himself father in the spiritual meaning. Further, real fathers are to instruct there children in a spiritual way (Psalm 78) as well as being physical fathers. Your exegesis makes little sense. Seems to me that if you understand Matt 23:9 in the sense that Jesus is saying that we call noone father as the ultimate source of all our benefits, the supreme provider and teacher. All other fatherhood is through this supreme fatherhood and therefore not anything of it's own but subserviant to God's fatherhood and not apart from it. I don't see the word holy in matt 23:9 anywhere. The verse you site is a different matter as I don't think Franks post was limited to calling the Pope father ras in Holy Father. But once again there are many things that are called holy in scripture, holy garmets, holy water, holy objects, Holy people etc. etc.. Holy in the sense of dedicated to the lord is quite appropriate I believe as long as this ultimate source definition is not violated. Now if you can show me where you exegesis is infallible and better than mine I am all ears. If not, then it is just your opinion and as you are pope over yourself you are welcome to it.

Blessings

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:

II Tim. 3:16,17 is in harmony with II Tim. 2:2. The scripture makes us complete and should be committed to FAITHFUL MEN who are able to teach the word to others also. Furthermore, oral proclamation of the written word ( preaching) is the method God chose to save man. I Cor. 1:18-21.

It is obvious God would not want an UNFAITHFUL man to do this. The faithful man was to teach sound doctrine. Titus 2:2. The unfaithful man would not do so, and his mouth was to be shut. Titus 1:9, II Tim. 4:1-4, I Tim. 4:1-6.

If a man preaches without the written word, what then is his message? How do we know it is from God?

The context of II Thes. 2:15 is a reference to the teachings of the inspired apostles. The church from her beginning in Jerusalem on Pentecost in A.D. thirty followed the divine examples and teachings of the apostles. Acts 2:42.

Furthermore, the context of the scriptures of the previous post as it pertains to the Catholic church and the Bible, illustrates the opposition of the one against the other.

 

[thessalonian]

Frank:

"II Tim. 3:16,17 is in harmony with II Tim. 2:2. The scripture makes us complete and should be committed to FAITHFUL MEN who are able to teach the word to others also. Furthermore, oral proclamation of the written word ( preaching) is the method God chose to save man. I Cor. 1:18-21."

Oh, I agree they are in harmony. What you discount and are not consistent with is the imporatnce of the spoken word that must go along with the written word. Did the Apostles and those whom they left behind just run around quoting scripture or did they expound on it? And were these understandings in the minds of the Apostles all captured explicitly in scripture? If not how do you know that you have the correct understandings. Once again I repeat that you contradict all your Protestant brethern on this board frequently. Who is right and how do you know that the errors you personally hold (for there must be some in your personal repitroir) are not damning?


"It is obvious God would not want an UNFAITHFUL man to do this. The faithful man was to teach sound doctrine. Titus 2:2. The unfaithful man would not do so, and his mouth was to be shut. Titus 1:9, II Tim. 4:1-4, I Tim. 4:1-6."

Well, who has the authority to shut his mouth frank? You? I agree completely with the above. I just don't see where you could possibly have this kind of authority over the whole Church and all who preach incorrectly.

"If a man preaches without the written word, what then is his message? How do we know it is from God?"

I don't know of anyone in the Catholic Church who is not using the written word. I do know of many protestants who contradict eachother while using only the written word. What is missing? It's the witness of 2 Tim 2:2. The witness of the Church.

"The context of II Thes. 2:15 is a reference to the teachings of the inspired apostles. The church from her beginning in Jerusalem on Pentecost in A.D. thirty followed the divine examples and teachings of the apostles. Acts 2:42".

Sure enough but you skirt the issue. There is oral and written teaching. Nothing says that all the oral teaching was written down explicitly in scripture. Certainly it would not contradict scripture.

"Furthermore, the context of the scriptures of the previous post as it pertains to the Catholic church and the Bible, illustrates the opposition of the one against the other. "

No, it only illustrates your lack of understanding. You have not refuted yet what I say about Paul calling himself father and you having to honor your father. I will be glad to tackle the rest if you can show that you are correct on this one. another challenge frank. You have ducked a couple now. I see no scripture proving that word of God is only equal to written word (though that is a part of it), so you are 0-2 on challenges i have placed before you.