Hmmm. Very interesting posts from everybody.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Paganism??
- Thread starter Jude
- Start date
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Brother Ed,
Forgive me:
"We used every argument against the Church we could find, had them all answered, and put down our swords and entered the great Barque of St. Peter, the Church which is the holy Bride of Christ."
You had to have put down your Sword to be believing the falsehoods I have seen you post.
THIS is why I cannot be Catholic!
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
I have seen the outcome of putting down your Sword.
God Bless
Forgive me:
"We used every argument against the Church we could find, had them all answered, and put down our swords and entered the great Barque of St. Peter, the Church which is the holy Bride of Christ."
You had to have put down your Sword to be believing the falsehoods I have seen you post.
THIS is why I cannot be Catholic!
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
I have seen the outcome of putting down your Sword.
God Bless
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Grant,
Please don't play stupid. It doesn't get us anywhere.
YOU and all the rest of the Catholics know EXACTLY what I am getting at.
The BIBLE (above tradition) says that Jesus did something to the bread before He gave it out.
TWO THINGS.
You only do ONE.
I am not going to repost all those verses, but read them again from my other post.
Jesus broke the bread, He was known in breaking of bread, He told Paul to BREAK the bread because HIS BODY was broken for YOU.
This is a really simple concept.
The CC doesn't break the bread. It is intact. It is in the shape of a circle, and then put in a sun burst 'monstrance' that YOU SAID is INSTEAD OF a pagan sun god.
AFTER you get it 'blessed' you eat it.
You will argue that the 'consumation' is what breaks it.
Well, THE MOMENT saliva touches it, THE MOMENT, it begins to be digested. THE MOMENT. So unless you have found some way of putting the wafer in your MOUTH without saliva getting on it BEFORE you break it WITH your mouth (which Jesus didn't do, He used His hands)then by all means, continue in your way.
Jesus didn't do it that way though.
He took the bread and BLESSED IT, and THEN broke it, and it says AFTER HAVING BROKE IT, He said "TAKE" "EAT" "THIS IS MY BODY" "WHICH WAS BROKEN FOR YOU"
If you are eating a wafer that is NOT broken, you are NOT eating the Body of Christ, no matter who blessed it.
I never said that I didn't think the Communion service was the Body of Christ. It is. The Bible says it is. BUT, I DO NOT believe all that YOU and other CC members do about the euchrist part of the liturgy.
(you know, all the stuff that IS NOT in the Bible)
God Bless
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Tom,
You wrote, "But it hasn't. The BODY of Jesus Christ is PHYSICALLY present in Heaven at the right hand of the Father."
I agree.
I have no doubt that many of you do. However, many Catholics do not, just as many non-Catholic professing "Christians" do not walk by faith either.
But of course
"I (not a wafer) am the bread of life.
If the bread becomes Jesus, then the bread is the bread of life, who is Jesus.
He who COMES to ME (not a wafer) shall never HUNGER, and he who BELIEVES IN (has faith in) ME (not in transubstantiation) shall never thirst.
Jesus speaks of hunger symbolically in this part of the chapter. I agree with you. Jesus then moves into the literal sense, and John signifies this by deliberately altering the verb he employs for "eat".
Check this out..
John 6:48-61:
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers PHAGO the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may PHAGO of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one PHAGO of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you PHAGO the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who TROGO my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who TROGO my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who TROGO me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers PHAGO and died; he who TROGO this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?"
I have replaced each occurrence of the verb “eat”, “eats”, or “ate” with the actual Greek word used in this passage from the 6th chapter of St. John’s Gospel in order to indicate how St. John stresses the literal reality of Christ’s words.
phago {fag'-o}: to eat, take food, eat a meal, metaphor to devour or consume
trogo {tro’-go}: to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds) of men or of animals feeding, implying a crunching sound
Take note as to how St. John changes Greek verbs mid-discourse from the casual “phago” to the literal “trogo”. “Trogo” is never used metaphorically in Classical Greek literature, nor elsewhere in Sacred Scripture.
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who SEES the Son (not a wafer) and BELIEVES in HIM may have everlasting life, and I will raise Him up on the last day." John 6:40
Have you seen Jesus? Have you gazed upon him with your own eyes? And when you did, did you believe? I have. I gazed upon him in the Eucharist with my own eyes, and I believed. I discerned the spiritual body behind the appearance, smell, and taste of bread.
"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11)
Comparing verses 35 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it is clear what Jesus means by the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking his blood.
The phrase "to eat the flesh and drink the blood," when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation.
To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense. For an examples of this use, refer to Micah 3:3; 2 Samuel 23:15-17; Revelation 17:6; Isaiah 49:26, 9:18-20.
Jesus flesh avails because it was broken for us on the cross.
Amen brother.
Having FAITH on the risen Savior and His finished work on the cross is what avails.
Amen
The Jews who walked away had a level of discernment that wasn't spiritual, since the spiritual meaning of Jesus' words (BELIEVING ON HIM) escaped them, not that they rejected transubstantiation.
I would say that they walked away because the saying was difficult, not because they misunderstood.
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (6:60)
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? (6:61)
Jesus knew that they interpreted rightly, and he acknowledged so by asking them if they took offense at his saying. You don't ask someone if they take offense at something they misunderstand. You ask someone if they take offense at something you mean and they understand and thereby take offense at.
He then rebuked them for not accepting what they rightly understood by telling them, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (6:63).
You wrote, "But it hasn't. The BODY of Jesus Christ is PHYSICALLY present in Heaven at the right hand of the Father."
I agree.
I have no doubt that many of you do. However, many Catholics do not, just as many non-Catholic professing "Christians" do not walk by faith either.
But of course
"I (not a wafer) am the bread of life.
If the bread becomes Jesus, then the bread is the bread of life, who is Jesus.
He who COMES to ME (not a wafer) shall never HUNGER, and he who BELIEVES IN (has faith in) ME (not in transubstantiation) shall never thirst.
Jesus speaks of hunger symbolically in this part of the chapter. I agree with you. Jesus then moves into the literal sense, and John signifies this by deliberately altering the verb he employs for "eat".
Check this out..
John 6:48-61:
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers PHAGO the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may PHAGO of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one PHAGO of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you PHAGO the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who TROGO my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who TROGO my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who TROGO me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers PHAGO and died; he who TROGO this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?"
I have replaced each occurrence of the verb “eat”, “eats”, or “ate” with the actual Greek word used in this passage from the 6th chapter of St. John’s Gospel in order to indicate how St. John stresses the literal reality of Christ’s words.
phago {fag'-o}: to eat, take food, eat a meal, metaphor to devour or consume
trogo {tro’-go}: to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds) of men or of animals feeding, implying a crunching sound
Take note as to how St. John changes Greek verbs mid-discourse from the casual “phago” to the literal “trogo”. “Trogo” is never used metaphorically in Classical Greek literature, nor elsewhere in Sacred Scripture.
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who SEES the Son (not a wafer) and BELIEVES in HIM may have everlasting life, and I will raise Him up on the last day." John 6:40
Have you seen Jesus? Have you gazed upon him with your own eyes? And when you did, did you believe? I have. I gazed upon him in the Eucharist with my own eyes, and I believed. I discerned the spiritual body behind the appearance, smell, and taste of bread.
"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11)
Comparing verses 35 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it is clear what Jesus means by the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking his blood.
The phrase "to eat the flesh and drink the blood," when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation.
To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense. For an examples of this use, refer to Micah 3:3; 2 Samuel 23:15-17; Revelation 17:6; Isaiah 49:26, 9:18-20.
Jesus flesh avails because it was broken for us on the cross.
Amen brother.
Having FAITH on the risen Savior and His finished work on the cross is what avails.
Amen
The Jews who walked away had a level of discernment that wasn't spiritual, since the spiritual meaning of Jesus' words (BELIEVING ON HIM) escaped them, not that they rejected transubstantiation.
I would say that they walked away because the saying was difficult, not because they misunderstood.
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (6:60)
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? (6:61)
Jesus knew that they interpreted rightly, and he acknowledged so by asking them if they took offense at his saying. You don't ask someone if they take offense at something they misunderstand. You ask someone if they take offense at something you mean and they understand and thereby take offense at.
He then rebuked them for not accepting what they rightly understood by telling them, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (6:63).
trying2understand
New Member
Where is this instruction to break the bread?
Jesus said, "Take and eat..."
Chapter and verse, if you will, please.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Carson,
I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Based on the parallel verses I pointed to above (Believing the Son and eating His flesh both described as bringing eternal life and the resurrection on the last day--compare 40 with 54) I still see no reason to take Jesus' words as anything more than a metaphor. This is especially in light of the fact that He has a similar discourse with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. There, she was initially tripped up on the idea of PHYSICALLY drinking the "living water" that Jesus offered (see v 11-12, 15). Jesus' statement regarding those DRINKING the living water He offers never THIRSTING again mirrors His statement in 6:35 about those BELIEVING in Him never THIRSTING. (Surely we are not to understand that those who "drink" such "water" will have a LITERAL fountain of LITERAL water springing up inside their PHYSICAL bodies--v. 14). However, rather than walking away disgruntled at His difficult saying, she ran and brought the men of the town to see Jesus. Rather than abandoning Jesus, she bore fruit befitting repentance.
At any rate, though we disagree, I do appreciate your civil responses. God bless!
I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Based on the parallel verses I pointed to above (Believing the Son and eating His flesh both described as bringing eternal life and the resurrection on the last day--compare 40 with 54) I still see no reason to take Jesus' words as anything more than a metaphor. This is especially in light of the fact that He has a similar discourse with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. There, she was initially tripped up on the idea of PHYSICALLY drinking the "living water" that Jesus offered (see v 11-12, 15). Jesus' statement regarding those DRINKING the living water He offers never THIRSTING again mirrors His statement in 6:35 about those BELIEVING in Him never THIRSTING. (Surely we are not to understand that those who "drink" such "water" will have a LITERAL fountain of LITERAL water springing up inside their PHYSICAL bodies--v. 14). However, rather than walking away disgruntled at His difficult saying, she ran and brought the men of the town to see Jesus. Rather than abandoning Jesus, she bore fruit befitting repentance.
At any rate, though we disagree, I do appreciate your civil responses. God bless!
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
At any rate, though we disagree, I do appreciate your civil responses.
Amen brother
I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
That would seem to be a necessary attribute of Protestantism.
I still see no reason to take Jesus' words as anything more than a metaphor.
I urge you to reconsider the three reasons I've provided:
(1) John's usage of PHAGO and TROGO
(2) How "to eat the flesh and drink the blood" used figuratively is an idiom representing injury and slander.
(3) The Jews clarify the literal interpretation, they say it is a hard saying, and Jesus affirms their interpretation by saying, "Do you take offense at this?"
Those are great reasons!
the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 ... His statement in 6:35 about those BELIEVING in Him never THIRSTING.
Again, I can only agree with you and clap my hands. Jesus does speak figuratively in both instances.
Now, consider the fulfillment of the Passover..
Isn't it true that the Passover Lamb was eaten in the context of the Passover seder meal?
Isn't it true that Jesus is the fulfillment of what the Passover Lamb foreshadows?
Isn't it true that Jesus, at the Last Supper (which was the Passover seder meal), offers his body to be eaten?
Jesus, our Lamb is both sacrificed and eaten. This is part and parcel with covenant sacrifices throughout antiquity and the Old Testament. Two parties make a sacrifice to bind one another in covenant and they partake of the sacrifice in the sacrificial meal to ratify the covenant made.
In the Eucharist, Jesus invites us to partake of his sacrifice, ratifying and renewing the new covenant made in his blood, the covenant which saves.
Amen brother
I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
That would seem to be a necessary attribute of Protestantism.
I still see no reason to take Jesus' words as anything more than a metaphor.
I urge you to reconsider the three reasons I've provided:
(1) John's usage of PHAGO and TROGO
(2) How "to eat the flesh and drink the blood" used figuratively is an idiom representing injury and slander.
(3) The Jews clarify the literal interpretation, they say it is a hard saying, and Jesus affirms their interpretation by saying, "Do you take offense at this?"
Those are great reasons!
the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 ... His statement in 6:35 about those BELIEVING in Him never THIRSTING.
Again, I can only agree with you and clap my hands. Jesus does speak figuratively in both instances.
Now, consider the fulfillment of the Passover..
Isn't it true that the Passover Lamb was eaten in the context of the Passover seder meal?
Isn't it true that Jesus is the fulfillment of what the Passover Lamb foreshadows?
Isn't it true that Jesus, at the Last Supper (which was the Passover seder meal), offers his body to be eaten?
Jesus, our Lamb is both sacrificed and eaten. This is part and parcel with covenant sacrifices throughout antiquity and the Old Testament. Two parties make a sacrifice to bind one another in covenant and they partake of the sacrifice in the sacrificial meal to ratify the covenant made.
In the Eucharist, Jesus invites us to partake of his sacrifice, ratifying and renewing the new covenant made in his blood, the covenant which saves.
Chrissy,
My point was this. Some say--perhaps you would too--that Jesus did not intend for us to eat his body and drink his blood. They say it is only symbolic. We are to symbolically eat his body and drink his blood. Trouble with that is that the Bible says to symbolically eat another's flesh and drink their blood is the same as persecuting that person. See bible verses previously quoted. They show the eating of another's flesh or drinking of his blood. These instances are symbolic but also are persecutions of others. Would Jesus say for us to eat his actual body and drink his actual blood or would he say to eat and drink symbolically--thereby persecuting him--when we "do this in remembrance" of Him?
I am not at all refering to chewing or not chewing the Eucharist.
"So you are saying that the "Eucharist" DOESNT mean we are persecuting Jesus when eating it?"
Correct.
Dan
My point was this. Some say--perhaps you would too--that Jesus did not intend for us to eat his body and drink his blood. They say it is only symbolic. We are to symbolically eat his body and drink his blood. Trouble with that is that the Bible says to symbolically eat another's flesh and drink their blood is the same as persecuting that person. See bible verses previously quoted. They show the eating of another's flesh or drinking of his blood. These instances are symbolic but also are persecutions of others. Would Jesus say for us to eat his actual body and drink his actual blood or would he say to eat and drink symbolically--thereby persecuting him--when we "do this in remembrance" of Him?
I am not at all refering to chewing or not chewing the Eucharist.
"So you are saying that the "Eucharist" DOESNT mean we are persecuting Jesus when eating it?"
Correct.
Dan
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Where is this instruction to break the bread?
Jesus said, "Take and eat..."
Chapter and verse, if you will, please. </font>[/QUOTE]
Have you read all of my posts to this thread?
He DID something before He said 'take eat'.
Let's look at it again, seeing as how you did not see this in my previous posts:
Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Now since THIS is not enough for you to see that Jesus broke the bread, here is what Paul tells us:
1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Note that Paul didn't say 'the bread that we take and eat' but the bread that we BREAK.
And just for good measure:
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
He said THIS DO. Now, did that mean, just the taking and eating part? Or did it mean EVERYTHING that He just did?
He took bread and blessed it.
He broke the bread.
He said take.
He said eat.
He said THIS is my body which is BROKEN for you.
He said do THIS in remembrance of me.
There is no question that Jesus BROKE the bread.
Why don't you want to break the bread?
God Bless
neal4christ
New Member
That's right, all Catholics agree on everything.
Come on, Carson.Neal
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Neal,
It has been my experience that they don't really have their own opinion on anything spiritual, but rather they lean on tradition and statements made by church fathers and their priest.
It has been my experience that they don't really have their own opinion on anything spiritual, but rather they lean on tradition and statements made by church fathers and their priest.
My goodness, I leave this 'topic'for a few days, and what happens? We've gone completely off the original intent of this posting. Many of you are criticizing the 'Catholic' position of reverencing the Body of Jesus, and forgetting that what I is being produced by a PROTESTANT publishing house. Even if one did not believe in the 'Real Presence' (which I do, of course)I simply cannot see how the same would deny that at least the RC/Orthodox/Anglican is trying to honor and worship Jesus. Again, why not address the reason for this topic being posted in the first place. Paganism has infiltrated the Church in many ways, and it is alarming that a so-called Protestant publishing house has such a lack of discernment.
GraceSaves
New Member
That's right, all Catholics agree on everything.
Come on, Carson.Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Of course they don't, but in doing so, they are deviating from the teachings of the Church, which IS unified.
God bless,
Grant
GraceSaves
New Member
Do you get a merit badge for that? I hope so, because I can't see any immediate reward for making such a mean-spirited blanket statement.Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Neal,
It has been my experience that they don't really have their own opinion on anything spiritual, but rather they lean on tradition and statements made by church fathers and their priest.
God bless,
Grant
GraceSaves
New Member
Mom,
Please tell me why you think Jesus broke the bread. The way I see it, the large host is always broken before it is consumed, and the smaller hosts are already small enough that they need not be broken further. One could say that they are already broken.
God bless,
Grant
Please tell me why you think Jesus broke the bread. The way I see it, the large host is always broken before it is consumed, and the smaller hosts are already small enough that they need not be broken further. One could say that they are already broken.
God bless,
Grant
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Neal,
When I wrote, "That would seem to be a necessary attribute of Protestantism," I was responding to Tom's comment, "I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree."
This is an essential attribute to Protestantism. Disagreements on fundamental doctrines cause Christians to divide and "agree to disagree".
For the Catholic, that is not "good enough". We believe that the faith is objectively true and therefore objectively knowable. We have a Magisterium that can arbitrate and thereby keep us from this standoff that causes division. We thereby remain unified, unlike Protestantism, which has all the serenity of a barroom brawl, but no owner of the establishment to settle disputes. Catholic theologians engage in the same sort of brawl, but there's a bartender, an owner, a manager, someone with whom the buck stops - and he has the authority of Jesus Christ Himself to arbitrate as such.
God bless,
Carson
When I wrote, "That would seem to be a necessary attribute of Protestantism," I was responding to Tom's comment, "I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree."
This is an essential attribute to Protestantism. Disagreements on fundamental doctrines cause Christians to divide and "agree to disagree".
For the Catholic, that is not "good enough". We believe that the faith is objectively true and therefore objectively knowable. We have a Magisterium that can arbitrate and thereby keep us from this standoff that causes division. We thereby remain unified, unlike Protestantism, which has all the serenity of a barroom brawl, but no owner of the establishment to settle disputes. Catholic theologians engage in the same sort of brawl, but there's a bartender, an owner, a manager, someone with whom the buck stops - and he has the authority of Jesus Christ Himself to arbitrate as such.
God bless,
Carson
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
If you say so, Carson. I think history belies the notion of an infallible Magisterium.
I too believe in objective truth--I think you're interpretation of Scripture is incorrect and therefore not the objective truth. I'm "agreeing to disagree" because it seems obvious I'm not going to change you're mind, and you have failed to convince me of the truth of your position. You will continue to view Scripture through Catholic lenses, splitting hairs over the definitions of two Greek synonyms for "eating" while ignoring the contrast in the Greek in other instances (esp. Matt 16:18) when it suits the purposes of Catholicism.
When "Protestants" agree to disagree, it's not because they deny objective truth. Many separate (as they are instructed to do in Rom 16:17) when they are convinced true doctrine is being compromised in their current fellowship. Others, sadly, separate over their Protestant "traditions" and not over Scripture itself. Catholics on the other hand present this united facade, but often their beliefs are as variegated as those of the Protestants they criticize. They've been effective in maintaining that "unity" in part by suppressing and persecuting dissenters since at least the 4th century. (Sadly, many "Protestant" state-Churches have copied Rome and have used the same tactics.) They've also convinced the masses that in the Roman Church alone is salvation, so ya better stay in line. (It's easy to sell indulgences when the buyer is convinced the seller has the power to keep him or her out of hell or purgatory. And Hey if you just wear this brown scapular on such and such a date...) Many kings and emperors bought this untruth as well and were intimidated into submission to the Roman Pontiff.
(BTW, my name is not "Tom", but have a nice day just the same)
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Thomas,
(BTW, my name is not "Tom", but have a nice day just the same)
I apologize if I offended you, and I will refer to you as Thomas if you prefer.
I too believe in objective truth--I think you're interpretation of Scripture is incorrect and therefore not the objective truth.
Notice that you said, "I think". Well, "I think" as well. Who's right? You or the Presbyterians? You or the Methodists? You or the Church of the Nazarene?
You see, the problem isn't whether we believe in objective truth, but if we can come to agree on what the objective truth is with regards to articles of faith when we disagree on Scriptural interpretation.
splitting hairs over the definitions of two Greek synonyms for "eating"
Splitting hairs? I would rather call what I have done "exegesis". There is a marked difference between PHAGO and TROGO, and John's usage of one term changes to the other right when Jesus' language becomes more markedly literal.
This isn't eisegesis (imposing my Catholic viewpoint upon the text); it's proper exegesis: seing what the text has to say for itself.
while ignoring the contrast in the Greek in other instances (esp. Matt 16:18) when it suits the purposes of Catholicism.
In this instance, I would refer you to Protestant Biblical scholars who agree with the Catholic interpretation.
For example, Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes
The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108.)
Catholics on the other hand present this united facade, but often their beliefs are as variegated as those of the Protestants they criticize.
You are suggesting a falsehood. If you disagree, back up your assertion with evidence.
They've been effective in maintaining that "unity" in part by suppressing and persecuting dissenters since at least the 4th century.
And before the fourth century?
St. Irenaeus (c. 200 AD) - "...the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth." (Against Hersies 1,10,2)
I would also say that you are committing a gross over-generalization.
(It's easy to sell indulgences when the buyer is convinced the seller has the power to keep him or her out of hell or purgatory. And Hey if you just wear this brown scapular on such and such a date...)
Indulgences have nothing to do with hell, and the Church has never authorized the selling of indulgences. You have a gross misunderstanding of the history of a particular abuse that arose in the Church in the High Middle Ages.
your brother in Christ,
Carson
(BTW, my name is not "Tom", but have a nice day just the same)
I apologize if I offended you, and I will refer to you as Thomas if you prefer.
I too believe in objective truth--I think you're interpretation of Scripture is incorrect and therefore not the objective truth.
Notice that you said, "I think". Well, "I think" as well. Who's right? You or the Presbyterians? You or the Methodists? You or the Church of the Nazarene?
You see, the problem isn't whether we believe in objective truth, but if we can come to agree on what the objective truth is with regards to articles of faith when we disagree on Scriptural interpretation.
splitting hairs over the definitions of two Greek synonyms for "eating"
Splitting hairs? I would rather call what I have done "exegesis". There is a marked difference between PHAGO and TROGO, and John's usage of one term changes to the other right when Jesus' language becomes more markedly literal.
This isn't eisegesis (imposing my Catholic viewpoint upon the text); it's proper exegesis: seing what the text has to say for itself.
while ignoring the contrast in the Greek in other instances (esp. Matt 16:18) when it suits the purposes of Catholicism.
In this instance, I would refer you to Protestant Biblical scholars who agree with the Catholic interpretation.
For example, Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes
The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108.)
Catholics on the other hand present this united facade, but often their beliefs are as variegated as those of the Protestants they criticize.
You are suggesting a falsehood. If you disagree, back up your assertion with evidence.
They've been effective in maintaining that "unity" in part by suppressing and persecuting dissenters since at least the 4th century.
And before the fourth century?
St. Irenaeus (c. 200 AD) - "...the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth." (Against Hersies 1,10,2)
I would also say that you are committing a gross over-generalization.
(It's easy to sell indulgences when the buyer is convinced the seller has the power to keep him or her out of hell or purgatory. And Hey if you just wear this brown scapular on such and such a date...)
Indulgences have nothing to do with hell, and the Church has never authorized the selling of indulgences. You have a gross misunderstanding of the history of a particular abuse that arose in the Church in the High Middle Ages.
your brother in Christ,
Carson
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Ok, prove me wrong.
Think for yourself.
Is the bread that you take broken in front of you? NO. (with the rare exception of getting some of the big one)
The reason I think Jesus broke the bread is because the BIBLE SAYS SO!!!!
NO LESS than in 5 places I showed you that JESUS broke the bread!
This isn't a difficult concept Grant, why are you making it difficult?
You think I was mean to say that it has been my experience that Catholics don't think for themselves but lean on tradition, etc?????
YOU ARE DOING IT RIGHT NOW.
Why would you think that Jesus DIDN'T break the bread?
Why do you think it is ok NOT to break the bread?
Would that be host abuse?
Think about that. For yourself. Don't read anything. Don't go ask anybody. Just think.
God Bless
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Do you get a merit badge for that? I hope so, because I can't see any immediate reward for making such a mean-spirited blanket statement.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Neal,
It has been my experience that they don't really have their own opinion on anything spiritual, but rather they lean on tradition and statements made by church fathers and their priest.
God bless,
Grant </font>[/QUOTE]How many blanket statements have been made by the Catholics on this board about SDA members?
How many of those do you think are actually basing those on experience?
I have talked with MANY Catholics. And I am NOT talking about here.
Real live people, face to face, talking, and I ask them a question, and they say 'I have to ask my father about that' or, 'I'm not sure what the official stance is, let me get back to you', and 'that's not what My father said' etc.
NOW, if there are any Catholics here who would like to prove me wrong, then BY ALL MEANS take a whack at it.
Until then, my opinion will stay the way my experience has made it.
The only Catholic I have spoken to, that actually took the time (after some prodding) to think for himself, ended up going right back to the opinion of the church.
If you think I am wrong, and find it unfounded, prove it.
God Bless