James the Brother of Jesus Ossuary

[GraceSaves]

Frank,

You are not even making any sense. You seem to follow what ever line of dialogue will keep the light on the "evilness" of the Church.

You said that the Catholic Church contradicted itself. That is what you said. When prompted for evidence, you start talking about how the Church contradicts SCRIPTURE. That is not your original premise, yet you just glide by like you answered my question. You did not.

I'm aware that you think that the Church contradicts Scripture. You are aware that I do not believe it does. THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT. You say the Church changes its stances and backtracks, etc. You have not provided evidence for that.

Provide it, or move on. I'm not gonna debate you if you dodge the question or try to bring in some new, all-encompassing "you are wrong on all points" arguement that is BEYOND fruitless.

God bless,

Grant

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

There's a perfect example of the Catholic Church contradicting itself in the Catholic NAB's footnote on Matthew 23:8-12 (link)

These verses, warning against the use of various titles, are addressed to the disciples alone. While only the title "Rabbi' has been said to be used in addressing the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:7), the implication is that Father and "Master' also were. The prohibition of these titles to the disciples suggests that their use was present in Matthew's church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance. Whoever exalts . . . will be exalted: cf Luke 14:11.

Also, according to anathema xi of The Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople, most devout Catholics are anathema [going to hell], because they quote Origen in defense of purgatory & or infant baptism rather than anathemizing his writings --

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings, and all the other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by the aforementioned four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their godlessness persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned; let him be anathema.

[ May 13, 2003, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:
The organization of the church is provided in I Tim. 3:1-11 and Titus 1:4-9. The context of Titus 1 requires the elder to be able to both convict and exhort the gainsayer and shut his mouth. I hope this helps. It is as simple as sugar, plain pie, and clear as crystal.
Furthermore, Mat. 23:8 is in the context of addressing religious people, in particular pharisees, as they are warned against exhalting themselves above others through the use of names. Isaiah 42: 8,9 reveals a principle all denominationalist should remember. GOD DOES NOT SHARE HIS GLORY WITH ANOTHER. Therefore, I do not address any man as Reverend, Father, Bishop etc. It is clearly wrong to do so. Holy and reverend is his name, and men should reverence and respect it!. Psalms 11:8,9.
I think that pretty much deals with your contextual problem.

 

[Frank]

Grant:
I believe Sola just dealt with one such contradiction. However, if you would like more, I will provide them for you. In fact, if you listen to the Brown- Callam debate you will find more than enough to satisfy your curiosity. Daniel Callam is a Catholic priest. David is a Brown is a gospel preacher. The entire discussion about the sufficiency of the new testament may be seen and heard at oabs.org. Find the live events menu and click.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura in 2003:
There's a perfect example of the Catholic Church contradicting itself in the Catholic NAB's footnote on Matthew 23:8-12 (link)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />These verses, warning against the use of various titles, are addressed to the disciples alone. While only the title "Rabbi' has been said to be used in addressing the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:7), the implication is that Father and "Master' also were. The prohibition of these titles to the disciples suggests that their use was present in Matthew's church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance. Whoever exalts . . . will be exalted: cf Luke 14:11.

Also, according to anathema xi of The Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople, most devout Catholics are anathema [going to hell], because they quote Origen in defense of purgatory & or infant baptism rather than anathemizing his writings --

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings, and all the other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by the aforementioned four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their godlessness persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned; let him be anathema.

</font>[/QUOTE]Well I wouldn't consider a footnote to be an infallible statement as decrees of councils on faith and morals are but this is not a contradiction anyway. I sometimes wonder how you guys can possibly interprut the words of God when you can't correctly understand the words written by a man. Surely this man realizes that Catholics call priests father so your claim that he is saying you can't is ridiculous. He says: "are addressed to the disciples alone". The point is their fatherhood apart from God, i.e. calling a disciple father, not recognizing his fatherhood is from God and that God's Fatherhood is above his. Now I am sure you won't get it but at least I tried.

Secondly your constantainople condemnation can easily be taken to be only the errant writings of Origen regarding his universalist leanings. However, not all decrees of councils are in fact infallible, though certainly binding on the people of the time. Only matters which the council declares with regard to faith and morals are infallible. They did get it right that certain writings of Origen were definitely in error. And they had the authority to anethamtize someone for reading them (which basically means to excommunicate) but this is not forever binding on all faithful. Likely they wanted to keep the writings out of circulation at the time. This does not mean that later scholars could not study the writings and it certainly does not mean that all Origen taught was false. Do not speak about what you do not understand.

Once again, I am sure you will just ridicule and slide on to the next topic. Par for the course.

Here is the whole scoop on the origen deal. There is some question as to whether it was even a decree of the Council and likely was not.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

Read the bottom part in particular as it focuses on the facts of what can be known about this incident.

Blessings

[ May 13, 2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Frank:
Thessalonian:
The organization of the church is provided in I Tim. 3:1-11 and Titus 1:4-9. The context of Titus 1 requires the elder to be able to both convict and exhort the gainsayer and shut his mouth. I hope this helps. It is as simple as sugar, plain pie, and clear as crystal.
Furthermore, Mat. 23:8 is in the context of addressing religious people, in particular pharisees, as they are warned against exhalting themselves above others through the use of names. Isaiah 42: 8,9 reveals a principle all denominationalist should remember. GOD DOES NOT SHARE HIS GLORY WITH ANOTHER. Therefore, I do not address any man as Reverend, Father, Bishop etc. It is clearly wrong to do so. Holy and reverend is his name, and men should reverence and respect it!. Psalms 11:8,9.
I think that pretty much deals with your contextual problem.

Well then Paul is burning in hell for calling himself father. And James is right next to him for calling Abraham our father:

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar.

Sad, you just can't admit that your eisegesis does not take in to account all verses that deal with the name Father and come up with an understanding that fits all cases. So you put your hands over your ears and say Paul and James "didn't violate my interprutation because I say so." That's all. Sad.

God bless you though.

 

[thessalonian]

Frank,

" However, if you would like more, I will provide them for you. "

Well, I don't have time to listen to your anti-catholic stuff so if you would please take the time to give me some more. Remember though faith and morals. That is what to believe (i.e. I don't have to believe that everyting Origen has written is false and I will go to hell if I read some part of it, vs. if they had said that universalism was a good thing then that would have been a bit of a problem. Morals, if you can find one statement in any council or papal decree that says abortion is okay, I am all ears) If the Pope has predicted the stock market will go up and a council said it will go down I don't care. You don't make the rules so let's be honest here shall we. You've been alot of talk so far.


By the way Frank, I'm curious. Do you attend a Church of Christ service on Sundays? United Church of Christ? International Church of Christ? World Church of Christ? or some other form of the Church of Christ?
Blessing

[ May 13, 2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:
The context of James is a reference to the old testament and Abraham describing his relationship with the nation of Israel. James was not honoring and giving him a title to exhalt Abraham as per the discussion of Mat. 23. All men have a nation or family and a father. However, spiritually they are not to be honored above others by titles such as Rabbi, Master, or Father. Again, context is important.

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:
I have the all-sufficient new testament that completes me unto every good work. I do not have a pope, or magisterium who dictates to me what to believe in matters of faith. Are you saying that the teaching office of the Catholic church is not to be obeyed in matters of faith?

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:

I preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in the new testament of Jesus Christ. I am a part of the church that belongs to Christ as per Acts 2 and the new testament. Col. 1:12,13, Acts 20:28, Mat. 16:18, Acts 2:47.
I am not anti anything. However, I am for the Bible as the static, unchangeable, standard of truth. II Tim. 3:16,17.
It is a fact, that on the previously mentioned point, you and I disagree. My standard of authority is the word of Christ. John 12:48, Mat. 28:18-20. You reject the Bible as the all-sufficient, static standard of truth.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Frank:
It is a fact, that on the previously mentioned point, you and I disagree. My standard of authority is the word of Christ.

More accurately, your standard is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the word of Christ.

You cannot say that it is anything more than that.

So in the end, you put yourself above Scripture.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Frank:
Thessalonian:
The context of James is a reference to the old testament and Abraham describing his relationship with the nation of Israel. James was not honoring and giving him a title to exhalt Abraham as per the discussion of Mat. 23. All men have a nation or family and a father. However, spiritually they are not to be honored above others by titles such as Rabbi, Master, or Father. Again, context is important.

And I suppose that is why Paul says he (Abraham) is the father of Jews and Gentiles in Romans:

Romans 4:12
and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Romans 4:16
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL,

How is Abraham your father Frank. Read the context if you like. I don't see how you could read Rom 4 and say it only applies Abraham as a physical father of the Jews. Apparentlly he is "father of us all" if Paul says it in Scripture. Don't you believe scripture Frank?
Sorry, your explanation doesn't work for all verses. Abraham is the father in faith of us all. I don't see this as incompatible with the verse in James either so I stand by my words. Once again you avoided Paul calling himself the corinthians spiritual father.

I am still waiting for that list of contradictions.

[ May 13, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Hey Thess, read the footnote again:

The prohibition of these titles to the disciples suggests that their use was present in Matthew's church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance.

Wouldn't that statement indicate that the writer of the footnotes is saying Matthew included these statements of Jesus to get people in his church to stop using the titles?

Your turning the statement "The prohibition of these titles to the disciples" into "The prohibition of these titles to everyone BUT the disciples" is an excelent example of Roman Catholic interpretation.

Also, the reason I brought up the Origen thing was to point out that such things as infant baptism & purgatory owe a lot to this heretic which the council anathemized and whose writings it anathemized. Why is it the Roman Catholics will even resort to the writings of heretics to prove their false doctrines?

Protestant: Infant baptism is wrong!
Catholic: It is not! Look what Origen wrote!
2nd Council of Constantinople: Hey! Stop reading that!

BTW, where's your proof that the RCC doesn't hold the "ecumenical councils" to be binding on all generations since they conviened? I thought they did! Perhaps here you've admited that the RCC contradicts itself???? Either that or you're just wrong, or perhaps lying to get out of a strait.

[ May 13, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:
Abraham is a father in the following :
1. Geneology. James 2:21.
2. Nation of Israel. James 2:21-24
3. Christians by an obedient active faith Gal. 3:26-29.
He was not given a title describing him as an elitist as per Mat. 23.
James and Paul are using the term as a descriptor not as a title. The context obviously is a reference to a description of function as it relates to faith and works In fact, if you read the words in James and Galatians those exact words are used. How is Abraham a father? His example of a working active obedient faith. How is Abraham not our father? He is not a father by man made titles exhalting him over others. This is as plain as pie, simple as sugar,and clear as crystal.

 

[Frank]

Thessalonian:
In the english language, figures of speech are used to make a point. Paul called Timothy his own son in the faith. The point being Paul assumed the spirtual care for Timothy as if he were his father in the flesh. After all, this was the obligation of every father. Timothy had a greek father. See Acts 16. Iyt is obvious hsi real father took no interest in his spiritual development. Therefore, Paul conducts himself like he was Timothy's father in matters of spiritual development. Again, Paul was not given any title of father exhalting him as per Mat. 23. The phrase is a descriptor of function, not one of title.
The same phraseology or usage is employed in the letter to the Corinthians. Funny, many at the church rejected Paul as an apostle. It would be very diffcult to be a father to those who deny you. SEE II Cor 11.

 

[Frank]

Try2U:
Yes, I can say that the unchangeable, static standard of truth is my sole authority for waht is taught and practiced. On the other hand, uyoi cannot.
By the way, Jesus asked in Luke 10:25,26,25  ¶And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26  He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

It is obvious the STANDARD IS THE LAW. It is also obvious the individual must interpet it properly.
Therefore, it is the case the sole standard is that which is the Law of God, no more no less.

Therefore,it is just as obvious the STANDARD is NOT the catechisms, vatican councils, and papal edicts. It is just as obvious they are not the interpreter of scripture for the individual. The Bible says so.

 

[GraceSaves]

Frank,

For something that you are so sure of (that the Church contradicts itself on matters of faith and morals), you have yet to post anything yourself; you have only relied on others. Why not take a few minutes, and back up your statements so that I don't feel the need to ignore you from now on (since you throw out unsupported, libelous statements).

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Just thought this was interesting, since you guys want to squable over the New American Bible's footnote over the "father" issue.

Look at verses 8-10.

"Do not be called 'Rabbi.' The disciples are not to be called Rabbi. This is explict. No questions, I assume.

Now skip to verse 10. "Do not be called 'Master;'" The disciples are not to be called "Master." This is explict. No questions, I assume.

Back to verse 9. The same formula is not used. To the disciples, he says, "Call no one on earth your father." He doesn't tell them NOT TO BE CALLED 'FATHER.' He tells THEM to call no one on earth THEIR father. This is explicit. There are objections, I'm sure. But that is the text folks. They are not to be called "Rabbi" or "Master," and they are to call no one their father, for their Father, who gives them their spiritual fatherhood (a la Paul) is God the Father.

No where in this passage does it tell US not to call the disciples "father."

God bless,

Grant

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Frank:
Try2U:
Yes, I can say that the unchangeable, static standard of truth is my sole authority for waht is taught and practiced. On the other hand, uyoi cannot.
By the way, Jesus asked in Luke 10:25,26,25  ¶And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26  He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

It is obvious the STANDARD IS THE LAW. It is also obvious the individual must interpet it properly.
Therefore, it is the case the sole standard is that which is the Law of God, no more no less.

Therefore,it is just as obvious the STANDARD is NOT the catechisms, vatican councils, and papal edicts. It is just as obvious they are not the interpreter of scripture for the individual. The Bible says so.

Gee Frank, I don't see those words you posted anywhere in the Bible so this must be the Frank Catechism. And I guess all those people who can't read are just out of luck Frank. 90% of the human population since Christ went to hell because they couldn't read. Sad isn't it. Do you think Jesus really came to earth, suffered and died so that only the minority who could read would have a chance at salvation. Or do you think he might have left a Church with the fullness of the truth to instruct them in his ways. You say we must interprut correctly. How do you know that you do? You deny the Catholic Church interprutation which is exactly what the Catechism, councils, etc. etc are about.. You are a one man show Frank. It doesn't work.

 

[thessalonian]

Frank:

On the father thing. Your funny. Now it is okay in some instances for someone to call themselves or be called father even though Catholics are damned to hell for calling their priests father. I finally agree with you on something, i.e. why Paul called himself father. Funny thing is you don't understand that that is why we call priests father. They are our spiritual directors. Problem is you don't understand why we call our Catholic priests father. Your looking in through the windows at a company meeting and you can't figure out what they are doing Frank and so you make blind shots and accusations. No Frank, your an anti-catholic.

Bless you.