If you would like to use it yourself, you may copy and paste it. Just make certain it's not a site where it will get deleted ;)
Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx
-------------------------------------------------------
I’ve heard many times, here and elsewhere, Protestants advising Catholics to “read the Bible.” They speak of it as though it is that simple. They don’t seem to understand that language is not simple. Every time you see a letter, your brain ascribes to it a sound; to every combination of letters, a meaning; and to every combination of words, another meaning. It is a long process and there are many variables. In considering just how complicated this is, I am reminded of a sentence I came across just this morning:
“For the Christian life is full of meaning.”
When I first came across it, I read:
“For the Christian life is full of meaning.”
In other words, I understood it as saying that only a Christian life has meaning, as opposed to any other type of life. Reflecting on it later, I realized that it was probably supposed to read:
“For the Christian, life is full of meaning.”
Which reading implies that Christians view life as meaningful, while atheists, for instance, may not. The word “Christian” can be taken as a noun or an adjective, the sentence as a degrading fact or a hopeful view. The sentence seems simple, but the interpretations are radically different. Also take for an example the sentence “I did not steal it.” If you read it “I did not steal it,” you imply that someone else stole it. If you read it “I did not steal it,” then you imply that you borrowed it. And if you read it “I did not steal it,” then you imply that you stole something else. Even the simplest sentences are not so simple when it comes to interpreting them. When it comes to the Bible, the sentences you are reading are infallible. However, your interpretation is not. The second you read something, you cannot help but interpret it. So, the second you read the Bible, you introduce fallibility to the equation.
“But I have the Holy Spirit to guide me!” these Protestants cry in response. Yet nowhere in the Bible was the Holy Spirit promised to individual persons for their private edification. Rather, the Apostles were sent to educate. They did not hand the people Bibles and say “You believe now. The Spirit will guide you. You don’t need me!” Paul certainly did not think the people had a Spirit to interpret Scripture when he wrote so many letters to them correcting them! Furthermore, one wonders, if every faith filled and good willed person has the Spirit to guide them, why do Protestants not agree? There are millions of Protestants and thousands of denominations, each believing something different. They all love Jesus. By their criterion, they should all be led by the Spirit. However, they are contradicting each other. We can thus come to two conclusions:
1) The Holy Ghost actually is inspiring them all, but is telling some one thing and some another, giving them contradictions and falsehoods.
2) The Holy Ghost isn’t actually leading them all.
The first is not possible. Therefore, the second must be so, and that leads to a disturbing question. Who is really being led by the Spirit? Is it I, who doesn’t believe in infant Baptism, or that Methodist who does? Is it I, who believes in the Trinity, or that Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t? You do not know. You can never know. Protestants put so much stake on the Bible, but with their view of Sola Scripture they have rendered the entire Holy Book null and void, because they have no way of being sure they understand what they are reading. Hopefully, some will realize this and ask—as did the eunuch in Acts—“How can I understand if no one instructs me?”
Another disturbing aspect of Sola Scriptura is that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. There is no argument here. The fact of the matter is, there was no established canon in the early centuries. Some books like Revelation were accepted in some places and rejected in others. Some books like The Gospel of the Hebrews were accepted in some places and rejected in others. This is fact. Also fact, is that when it came time to remedy the “What is Scripture?” question, Bishops threw out books like the Gospel of Saint Peter for no other reason than that it was being used to contradict their pre-established beliefs. Protestants readily admit that the Catholics had their canon wrong in including Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach, etc. Five hundred years ago, they introduced to the world a canon contrary to every other canon before it. If Catholics had it wrong in including some books, what is to say they did not have it wrong in excluding others? Protestants must go back and find the books that Catholics threw out, and see if those actually do belong in the Bible just as Maccabees did not.
This leaves Protestants in a sorry state. They do not know if they have the true Bible, and even if they did, they could not be certain they understood it correctly. And they want us Catholics to convert?
You must worship Jesus in Spirit and in Truth!
ReplyDeleteHoly Scripture iss ALL that humankind has from God!
We have been left with the Holy Spirit when Jesus ascended to heaven, where he is seated at the right hand of God, the Father.
Hello, celticgirl,! Thank you for taking the time to read this blog. Please tell me where in the Scriptures it says that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, and all that Jesus left us.
ReplyDeletePax et bonum,
-Tally Marx
Sola Scriptura is not mentioned in the Bible but you can believe it WAS mentioned in the Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church! Where would the Council of Trent be without this integral defense mechanism?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. I do not understand your point. Are you trying to say that the Catholic Church taught Sola Scriptura?
ReplyDeleteHeavens No!
ReplyDeleteI do not have a copy with me now....but I am sure there was "plenty" to be said in "Trent" and the faithful Catechism to a-null Sola Scriptora!
Like the Pharisees of (Jesus time) who wanted to be more important than scripture, the RCC has made Tradition = Holy Scripture!
Celticgirl, Sola Scriptural is a tradition, even by your standards.
ReplyDeleteIf anything not in the Bible is tradition, and Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, then it is tradition. Therefore, you believe in tradition.
Sola Scriptura is an oxymoron. It means "Scripture Alone," yet is itself not found in Scripture. You don't even need a council to condemn it: it is a self-defeating idea.
By grace alone
ReplyDeleteThrough faith alone
In Christ alone
Give God all the Praise and Glory!
No one is failing to give God all the glory, celticgirl.
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteWhat about the 3 above ALONE....without any substitutions?
I don't think you can say that and be loyal to your religion!
Break them down and see where the RCsystem takes you!
Peace
1) The only place the words "faith" and "alone" are found in Scripture together is James 2. In this passage, James specifically says that one is not saved by faith alone.
ReplyDelete2) Grace alone? Celticgirl, of course we are saved by grace alone. The Catholic Church teaches that. However, if you are under the impression that having grace and being saved by it means that we can sit upon our duffs and do absolutely nothing, then I am afraid you are laboring under a false conception of grace, what it is and means.
3). "In Christ". Well, I would say, "through Christ" and Christ alone. Catholics don't believe that the Church can operate without Christ, or instead of Christ. The only reason the Church exists is because of Christ. It works through Him. It's not an either/or thing, it's a both/and thing.
I have a question. Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura if it is not in the Bible?
Tally
ReplyDeleteThe whole premise of "alone" is Christ does it all!
The idea of the Mother Church dispensing "Grace" through the Authority given to her his ManMade. The sacramental system is made by man with it's rituals and ceremonies.
In many ways the Grace of God is blasphemed and degraded by Man taking over his "great Gift" to us!
As far as the James verse "faith without works", it probably refers to man when he is given the grace of God---he believes and obeys God ---thus completes good works in his name!
For (Ephesians 2 :8-9) by grace though faith we are saved, NOT BY YOURSELVES, it is the Grace of God, NOT Works, lest any man should boast)....Sounds pretty clear to me...CHRIST work ALONE!
Peace
Tally
ReplyDelete1 more important thing :
Vicar of Christ---Is the Pope a substitute for Christ?
Unam Sanctam was revisited by Pope Benedict---submit to the Pope for the universal care of souls unhundered---sounds like deity to me!
Peace
celticgirl,
ReplyDelete1) where exactly are you getting "Christ alone"? What verse?
2) If the father of a certain family is the only parent working, and the only one earning money, no one is under any delusion that whatever is bought comes from him. It doesn't matter if the mom is the one who runs to the store: it is only possible through the dad, and if he wasn't there, nothing would be possible.
3) I gave you the Biblical basis of the Sacraments on the exCatholics forum. What you never gave me was a Biblical basis for your man made belief in Sola Scriptura.
4) Ephesians was talking about the works of the law. And it is true that we aren't saved by works [alone] and especially not by the works of the Jewish law. We also aren't saved by faith [alone]. We are saved by both good works (to which James referred) and faith together. That is the only way both passages make sense and are not contradictory. You keep adding the word alone, but I don't see "alone" anywhere in there.
5) I thought you used to be Catholic? The Pope is not a substitute Christ, as you should know well. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. He doesn't take the place of Christ, Christ speaks to us through him, the way Paul and Peter and the other apostles brought the words of Christ to the people.
Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible? And I have another question: are we capable of doing any sort of good without God?
Tally
ReplyDeleteWhere do I begin?
You have read and studied the NT and have you noticed how many times "In Christ" is written?
It is striking how many times the address of "In Christ" is written!
Jesus Christ is the Head of our Church and we are the Body. We are also the Bride of Christ in the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb"---unfortunately, many good people will not be attending!
Just because you are good, does not give you a "free pass" to heaven.
Surely, many people completed their "7 sacraments" and thought they received all the grace they needed for Everlasting life but where denied entrance into the Kingdom Of God.
See Matthew 7:23 -Depart from me .....I never knew you.....
Just a side note, Adolf Hitler was a Catholic and even served in the church but I am sure he is quite "thirsty" right now!
Sola Scriptura is not mentioned in NT but neither is Holy Trinity---it IS inferred.
The Roman Catholic Church was not mentioned either but we know it happened!
The Papacy is another discussion for another day.
Remember:
No one can have the Father as God, without a Mother as Church!
Peace
celticgirl:
ReplyDelete"In Christ" is written many times, tis true. But I asked you to show me where you found the words "In Christ alone."
"Just because you are good, does not give you a "free pass" to heaven." -celticgirl
True. However, neither does having faith. "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kindgom of heaven, but only the one who DOES the will of my Father in heaven." -Matthew 7:21
Please, celticgirl, I beg you to learn your history. Hitler was in no way Catholic. He was an atheist, and a Darwinist. He did not believe in much less adhere to the tenets of the faith, he persectued the Church, he murdered many priests, etc.
Where is Sola Scriptura inferred? In light of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, I do not see how it can be inferred. We covered that already on the other site.
"No one can have the Father as God, without a Mother as Church!" -celticgirl
That^ I wholeheartedly agree with.
And I also ask: are we capable of willing/doing any good without God?
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteFirst of all , Hitler was a Roman Catholic and took the sacraments into adulthood. He, as a tyrannical socialist and used the occult and and turned away from his Traditional religious ideology. In his book Mein Kampf, he uses many references to God, in order to meld the Prodestant and Catholics together. Unifying the nation against the Jewish people was his top priority.
I do not care if he ended up being "High Luciferian Priest"', he WAS a Roman Catholic---history cannot be re-written.
God gave sinful man free will- if we obey him=good but we can choose to be diobedient!
2Thesalonians is not a great chapter for apologist to "cling to"...this is about the Antichrist and not Futurism (if you know what I mean?)
Peace
He stopped receiving the Sacraments after childhood, didn't follow any Church teachings, believed in Darwin's natural selection/eugenicist view. The most one might say is that he believed in God, but didn't follow organized religion. Many of his personal "friends" say he actually disdained Christianity, but the entire topic is beside the point. We were speaking of the merits of good works. Hitler didn't do any good works, and the Catholic Church doesn't teach you can get to heaven by going through the motions. Going through the motions was never my point.
ReplyDeleteEr, no, I do not know what you mean. Paul gave a clear command to cling to both oral and written tradition. That command is clear and binding in both contexts.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteYes, he was talking to the Thessalonians about the Emporer and the Roman Empire and the apostasy which was at work! Paul had to be guarded about the information released at that brutal time of Christian persecution! The whole scripture gives the reader the vital message it needs to know, especially the Thessalonians.
Peace
I'm sorry, celticgirl, I'm afraid I do not see your point. Please expound.
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDelete2Thessalonians Chapter 2 is about the Antichrist---the whole chapter. I will not be any more specific than my last comment on March 14. It explains everything to guide you ....
Peace
Okay, then. I still don't see how that nullifies 2 Thess. 2:15. Paul says to cling to the oral and oral and written Traditions that were given us. Seeing that we have no idea who or what the antiChrist is, this is a command for always. Even if it is only to be ready for the antiChrist and be strong against it, we still have to cling to the oral and written Traditions that were given us so that we are knowledgeable/strong when it comes.
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDeleteYou use that one scripture a lot in defense of RC apostolic succession. It is saying "cling to your oral traditiomns" which they used to keep the word or writings of the Apostles continued and remembered. Some information was so dangerous to their well being, it could not be written down, in fear of extreme persecution by the Romans. Maybe they knew who the AntiChrist was?
Peace
So it wasn't written down. That is obvious. Maybe it wasn't written because it was too dangerous. I personally think it wasn't written because the Apostles didn't generally write things down, as they simply preferred to teach orally; it went in line with the command "preach the Gospel to all nations", allowed for more thorough instruction, and fit in with their (mistaken) belief that the Second Coming of Christ was going to be soon. The reason really doesn't matter. The fact remains, that there are teachings of the Apostles that weren't written down (see also John 21:25). Where are they? How are we to find them, to know them? And obviously if they weren't written down, then the Bible doesn't contain *everything* and we can't assume it is sufficient (Sola Scriptura).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, you are refuting 2 Thess. 2 with the belief that it is obsolete because it is about a certain subject; you think it's command is irrelevant to us today. Come now. Do you really think that any part of the Bible is irrelevant and outdated? How do you choose which passages aren't for you to believe, weren't meant for you, don't affect you? I believe that all of the Bible is equally important and, as the inspired word of God, is meant for everyone, everywhere.
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDelete2 Thessalonians chapter 2 is Not Obsolete, No Part of Scripture is ever Obsolete! This chapter was not speaking of the 2nd Advent---it as speaking of APOSTACY and the "Mystery of inequity" that was forming...and not a futuristic whitewashing! This topic is too painful... I will leave it alone for now!
Peace
I must admit I am more than a bit lost.
ReplyDeleteYou said that the Bible implies Sola Scriptura. I pointed to 2 Thess 2, in which we are commanded to cling to the oral as well as the written Tradition of the Apostles. My point being, that if we must cling to the oral Traditions, we cannot therefore cling solely to the written ones, and the Bible cannot therefore imply Sola Scriptura.
I thought that your last few posts denied my assertion--though again, I failed to see your point, and could have misinterpreted what you were saying. Please explain in clearer terms why you think Sola Scriptura does not contradict 2 Thess 2.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteI was not arguing pro or against Sola Scriptura with 2Thessalonians 2:15 or any chapter 2 scripture. I was simply saying that the "subject" matter seemed not a good choice for the RCC. it runs parallel to St.John's prophecies in Apocolypse/Revelations 17! Please don 't acuse me of targeting the papacy as the anichrist.
Question:
I noticed you wrote a word antiChrist---should this word be written Antichrist or Antichrist? Just wondering for future discussion.....
Peace
Correction
ReplyDeleteAntichrist or anti-Christ Should Christ be capitalized with anti ?
Peace
Why isn't 2 Thess 2 a good indication that Sola Scriptura is not Biblical? And why not cite it?
ReplyDeleteAs for anti-Christ, I don't think it particularly matters. I capitalize Christ because here the word "Christ" still refers to the Second Person of the Trinity. It's still a name. Like anti-Catholic. Though, the new compound word is, as a whole, a name in itself. I suppose, technically, both Anti and Christ should be capitalized, therefore. Can't think of any reason to not capitalize Christ, though, so I capitalize it. But, despite my being an author/editor, I'm not such a grammar Nazi that I'll take points off if you spell it differently.
Test
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteWritten > oral
Peace
Celticgirl, what makes you think that? I have never read anything in Scripture to that effect.
ReplyDeleteNo, Tally
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing written of that because it is common sense!
There was an old game --where someone whispered in the ear of their neighbor- then it went on to another one.-- and on--by the 20th person....there was not the original message!
How can you possibly trust information passed down through time by some individuals with a 'thirst for power'???
Peace
Celtic:
ReplyDeleteCome, now. Read what you just wrote. It is not common sense, for multiple reasons.
Firstly, eye witnesses--and many of them--actually keep authors in line and guarantee the accuracy of what is written. Would you trust a report written by a journalist that had no living, breathing persons to corroborate? No. The fact that info is passed down, shared, and meticulously taught by living persons does not invalidate what is taught.
Secondly, writings can be corrupted, too. There are numerous versions and translations of the Bible. They don't even all have the same number of books. You cannot trust writing any more than you can trust oral tradition...from a purely human standpoint. Which brings me to....
Three: we are talking about God here! The same God who keeps the Scriptures preserved is perfectly capable of keeping oral Tradition preserved.
There are other reasons, but these three will suffice for now, I think. Especially the last.
Tally
DeleteO.K.
It is criminal all the biblical versions of translations that are out there--even the Catholic bible has been revised!
I am not going to get into the Apocrapha books that were added to justify (for example Purgatory)--in the Vulgate 16th century!
I CAN understand people wanting the bible in the vernacular so they could read "The Word of God"
I don't agree with your first point-- maybe not I the first or second century, but there were plenty of centuries were some bad stuff was going on (ex: 8th century-the donation of Constatine, debautuary 1000A.D popery....) a News reporter usually has to have confirmation to make sure his story is NOT a hoax!
Corruption has been around since Adam & Eve and especially through the Papacy!
Peace
I am laughing at miss-spells but too lazy to fix them!
Tally
ReplyDeleteThe RCC hinges a lot on the addition of 2Maccabees on the added 7 books (Apocrypha) in the Catholic Bible for the belief in Purgatory.
The use the scriptures in the NT that have NOTHING to do with Purgatory--just a twisting of truth to try to make the point!
Peace
Celtic:
ReplyDeleteI said that there is nothing in the Bible which raises the written Tradition over the oral.
You said that writing being superior to spoken teachings is only common sense, because spoken teachings are corruptible.
The problem with this "common sense" is that, if the logic is followed through to the end, it doesn't believe in the Bible. The written word is just as corruptible from a human standpoint as the oral. If corruptibility is an excuse for inferiority in the oral, then it is so in the written. Your "common sense" would lead me to believe that even the Bible is unimportant.
This "common sense" also fails in light of what the Apostles themselves believed. They did not think writing was important. Only five of the twelve Apostles ever wrote anything, and these that did write were in no rush to, waiting as long as twenty-five years to begin their account. That writing was not as important as verbally teaching is evident in the case of Paul, who wrote only as a last resort, but first spoke personally to the people, verbally taught them, and visited them as often as possible. 3 John 1:14 is yet another piece of evidence that the spoken word was the favored medium of the Apostles. Generally, the Apostles taught orally. They did not stress writing. Therefore, the "common sense" assumption that writing is more important than the Oral Tradition is unfounded.
The Apocrypha were not added to the Canon in the sixteenth century. They were *removed* from it in the 1500s.
Maccabees clearly teaches Purgatory, and it is alluded to in the NT. As you apparently don't believe that Maccabees is part of the Bible, I do not see how you can say Catholics "twist it" to teach Purgatory.
But back to the original point, which you have as yet failed to address:
Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, we are commanded to hold fast to *both* the Written Traditions and the Oral Traditions. In light of this, my question remains: why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?
Tally,
ReplyDeleteWhen Jeome translated the Greek into Latin he did not want the Apocrapha added because it was not inspired according to Judaism! The Lord himself did not read the Apocraphal writings!
Expain what you mean by they were removed in the from the Canon in 16th century. To my knowledge, 7 books were added to the OT.
Of course, the Apostles spoke the Gospel but thank God there were scribes!
Peace
I saw at the Council of Trent, some of the Apacrapha was revised and some dropped. Basically the NT writings are more pertinent to the Christian. The Gospel message is clear (Gods power unto Salvation) nothing else matters!
ReplyDeletePeace
You have to be a superior bible scholar to grasp all history of bible history!
Tally,
ReplyDeleteI noticed, when looking over what I wrote, I spelled apocryhpha wrong....so wrong...embarassingly wrong! please excuse my errors!
Why do you think we are commanded to believe in Oral Traditions when Jesus chastised the Pharisees for their Traditions?
Show me some other scriptures in the NT that we are commanded to believe in Traditions! ---Not 2Thessalonians 2:15....try to give me something else.
Thanks
Peace
Other than 2Thess? Well, there is Matthew 23:3, where we are commanded to "do what the Pharisees say" which doesn't show any hostility toward Tradition, just the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. There is Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says that He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. Then there is His command to "go out and *preach* to all nations" which doesn't mean "go out and write to all nations". Following that is that fact that the Apostles deemed personally preaching more important than writing, and the Holy Spirit gave them the power to preach well and in tongues on Pentecost, not the power to write well. And then there is Acts 8, which further proves the necessity for oral teaching. That's all I can remember off the top of my head and late at night, but there are many places in which we are told, explicitly and implicitly, to adhere to oral Traditions. Tradition was never condemned in the Bible (the Bible itself is Tradition). However, tradition (with a little t) was condemned. What Jesus condemned was man made, nit picky, useless and exaggerated mundane practices. Not Tradition.
ReplyDeleteWhat are some verses which tell us to believe in only the Bible?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTally
DeleteJesus said to the Pharisees, "Your father is the devil", he had no patience in their mam-made authority over scripture! Viper! Hypocrites!
God is not impressed with man acting as holy before a truly sinless, undefiled, spotless "spirit""--
You bring up the "Great Commision", to go out in the world to spread the gospel....this was mentioned CLEARLY in scripture text and was surely not going to be interpreted but 1 way!
Thy Word is TRUTH!
Peace
I do not get what you are trying to say. Of course Jesus didn't have patience with their man made practices, etc. I never said He did. I quoted Him directly when I said, "Do as they say, not what they do." and if you have a problem with that command then I suggest you take it up with Him.
DeleteIt was mentioned clearly in Scripture, and I would think there is only one way to interpret it, but if you think that it means "go out and write to all nations" then apparently there isn't.
Sure His Word is Truth. But I can't find a single reason to believe that that Word *must* be *written*.
I may be wrong, but I think Jerome later changed his mind about whether the Apocrypha should be included. At any rate, many other early Christians believed they were part of the Canon, and quoted from them and said they were, explicitly. The device I am on will not let me paste, and I don't have the time to hand type it, but sources include the Epistle of Barnabas in 74 AD, and Clement of Rome to the Corinthians in 80 AD, and the Didache in 90 AD, and Polycarp to the Philippians in 135 AD, and Melido of Sardes in 177 AD, and Irenaeus in 180 AD, and Tertullian in 197 AD, and the Moratorian Fragment in 200 AD, and Tertullian again in 200 AD, and Cyprian, and Origen, and Hyppolatus in the 200s, and the list, passages, and quotes are so long it would literally take you an hour to read them. So, no, the Apocrypha were consider Canon long before the sixteenth century, but we're actually removed in that century.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean, Jesus did not read the Apocrypha? He most certainly did! He and His Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish OT that contained the Apocrypha. He references the Apocrypha multiple times. Again, I cannot copy and paste, and it would take far too long to write, but here is a summary. Please get a Catholic Bible/the Apocryphal writing and check these corresponding verses:
ReplyDeleteMatthew 2:16 to Wisdom 11:7
Matthew 6:19-20 to Sirach 29:11
Matthew 7:12 to Tobit 4:15
Matthew 7:16,20 to Sirach 27:6
Matthew 9:36 to Judith 11:19
Matthew 11:25 to Tobit 7:1
Matthew 12:42 refers to the wisdom of Solomon
Matthew 16:18 to Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 22:25, Mark 12:20, and Luke 20:29 to Tobit 3:8 and 7:11
Matthew 24:15 to 1 Macc 1:45 and 2 Macc 8:17
And that's not even all of Matthew, not to mention the rest of the Gospels. Someone on Phatmass posted the references and the Early Chritians quotes not too long ago. You can find them on the "Immature Fan Club board" under the thread "Do not Support the Whoseoevers" on pages 49 and 50. Longest posts on those pages, you can't miss them.
See my new entry before your response on the amended Apocryphe.
ReplyDeleteI know there are numerous citations from church fathers...thanks for your input!
Like I said, "you have to be a serious Church historian" to deal with these "factoids"... Deep and challenging---a life time of discovery!
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeleteBone to pick with RCC...
Why in the Greek translation to the Latin were there so many errors with the word
Repent/Penance
This changed the meaning totally...it blows my mind. This was not corrected until recent revisions of the Catholic Bible.
Innocent minds want to know!
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeleteThat goes to show you.....
The Word can be distorted but by READING it you can SEE if a mistake was made. This prevents tarnished words to go further by mouth.
By the way, I an so certain of my "eternal life", I will ask Jesus about the Pharisees!
Give you the answer in person(non corruptable body in ten New Jerusalem)
Peace
Celtic:
ReplyDeleteI am not an expert in Bible history, but I've been studying it for eight years, so I suppose I have as good a start as the next person. I do know Latin, though. Repentance/Penitence are *the same word*. "Paenitentia".
Paenitentia can be translated either repentance or penitence; they mean the same thing, so both are equally acceptable. It does not "change the meaning totally".
My bone to pick with Protestants is...
Why do they believe in Sola Scriptura when it is not in the Bible?
"That goes to show you...." -Celticgirl
Nothing. I don't see anything. If you mean the translation, then all it goes to show is that many people don't know Latin. No, by reading you *cannot* see if a mistake has been made. All you will see is that what you were told doesn't sync with what you have read. But is it the words that were incorrect, or is what you were reading incorrect? You can't have a clue. Because the written word is just as corruptible as the spoken word.
The only reason you believe the written word is more reliable is because the particular book you are speaking of (the Bible) is infallible, protected and guided by God Himself. That's all. The problem with your stance, then, is that it assumes God would not guide the spoken word (Oral Traditions) as well. You have no reason to assume that.
So, in the case of Oral Traditions, the most direct answer to your accusation that they are corrupted and unreliable is: no, they're not, because God has preserved them just as He has the Bible.
Tally
ReplyDeleteTo Repent "is to turn from "
To do Penance is a church imposed discipline an act of sorrow! Basically. It is a sacrament!
They are MOST definitely DIFFERENT!
The Bible is infallible but Tradition is errant because of delivery.
Peace
Celticgirl:
ReplyDeleteTo the Jews and all the early cultures, the two were synonymous. If you repented then you did penance, and if you did penance then you had repented. It was like drinking and swallowing. I suppose you could argue that one can drink water without swallowing, but typically people don't. And people then, didn't. That is why there was only one word for it. So, no, the meaning isn't different. Not in an historical, Biblical, and lingual context.
Because of delivery? Writing is a fallible medium as well--authors are perfectly capable of lying, and their writing perfectly capable of being changed (especially when they have been copied millions of times over). Writing is just as errant a delivery as the spoken word here. What you are trying to do, is limit God. You perceive writing as more accurate because that is what you know and what is true *on a human level*. But God is not human and He doesn't stop at your perceptions. He is perfectly capable of making the Oral Traditions inerrant and infallible. Unless you want to argue that God is incapable of making the Oral Traditions inerrant, or provide Biblical proof that He did not, then your excuse that Oral Traditions are errant is logically unsound.
And, for future reference, both the Bible and the Oral Teaching are Tradition. To refer to the Oral as Tradition and the Bible as just "the Bible" as though it itself were something else, is incorrect.
Tally
ReplyDeleteWhy did it take so long...the RCC had in their Bibles until the latter 20th century the word Penance instead of Repent. Scholars and apologist aggreed with the change. How many Catholics read the Bible with the incorrect word? But, How many Catholics read the Bible (I know you do!) --- post Vatican II we were allowed to read but not interpret!
Another terminology (oral and written) that is bothering---
The substitution of RCC in "Justification" discussions with "conferring" as opposed to "imputation"...confer vs impute.......Used a lot with Ecuminism.
All this goes to clever, brilliant man...but not spotless, sinless God!
The Biible, as The Only Authority is much more dependable than Tradition!
I saw recently that Abraham Lincoln quoted "The Holy Bible was the Greatest gift to Mankind!"
Peace
Celtic, did you not read what I wrote? Or do you not understand what it means to translate? It was not "the incorrect word". Both words are translated *the same*. If someone asked you what Paenitentia means, you could give two answers and *both* would be correct. Your fuss with the translation would be like this: I ask you to give me the translation of the French word "jolie" and then yell at you when you tell me it means "beautiful" because, "it should be translated pretty!". It would make no sense for me to do that, because both pretty and beautiful are acceptable translations of jolie--you would even say they are synonyms/mean the same. Do you understand? There *was no wrong translation*. Both repentance and penitence are acceptable words for Paenitentia. Whichever you use is a matter of preference, not a matter of rightness or wrongness.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your second question. Please word it differently, and let us finish the former subject before moving on to this one.
There you go again, making that unfounded assumption! *Why* is written Tradition more dependable than Oral Tradition? *Why* (other than your personal preconceived notion) is Written Tradition the "only authority". You keep asking me to prove what I believe, but you give absolutely no reason to believe what *you* believe. Your assumptions are unfounded, and it makes them look weak. No, Lincoln is not a good foundation. He was a great man and a good president of the USA, but not good enough to found my spiritual life on. He is not proof of your assertion. Please answer my question about Written and Oral Tradition.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteNO human do you put your spiritual foundation on ...that's unreasonable...EXCEPT, as a RC ...you put your foundation on a man that became "Unfallible" in 1870 at the Council of Vatican I on Faith & Morals!
There is but one "foundation"---Our "Cornerstone...Jesus Christ" himself!
Put your trust in God not in man!...Unam Sanctum
You say the meaning of the previous words are the same...repent is not a punishment. Christ did it ALL for the believer, he is our (ransom)...our substitution on the cross to PAY for our sins. We must believe in Christ "Finished Work!"
Peace
Celtic, you say you used to be Catholic. If you really were, then you would have heard the words "Christ is the foundation of the Church, the Cornerstone of the Church" far, far too many times to make such silly accusations. You would also know how grace works, and wouldn't be fussing about "punishment".
ReplyDeleteI told you what the Latin means, and how it can be translated. Unless you know Latin, as well, and better than I, you cannot give me definitions and say the translation is "incorrect". "Curious minds" do not "want to know", it seems--they just want to argue.
You still haven't given me any reason to believe in Sola Scriptura, but are now just trying to change the subject. When I discuss things, I like to *discuss* them. If you have no defense of Sola Scriptura other than you happen to believe it, then please say so so that we can move on to your objection about grace.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteLet' talk...cornerstone...how about "Rock"...and I don't mean Peter.
Throughout the OT the Rock=God
But the RCC equates Rock=Peter
The classic Matthew argument: On this Rock,I build my Church
Then in Greek Peter = stone. But. Better yet in AramaicPeter = rock
But there is no older Aramaic texts existing before the Greek text.
It makes a lot more sense that Jesus built his Church on God rather than Peter's revelation that Jesus was the Son of God!
Peter was given the keys to start HIS Church....and he did
First with the Jews and then with the Gentiles, starting with Cornelius. Thus, Christianity spread with the Holy Spirit and the Apostles.
You have asked me many times about Sola Scriptura....And I find it difficult to defend without being offensive to my RC brethren. Christians are soldiers for Christ and must put on the full Armor of God. I believe the "Sword of God" is his WORD (The Holy Bible)!!!
Peace
Celticgirl:
ReplyDeleteThank you for finally explaining to me why you believe in Sola Scriptura. There is nothing offensive about saying that you believe something simply because you believe it. It is offensive, however, to pretend that you are privy to some information and have some conclusive evidence that we are not and do not have. Especially when you yourself don't have it.
You are correct that there are no Aramaic texts. However, the word Cephas (which is the Aramaic for rock) does itself appear in the NT, many times, and directly referring to the Apostle formerly known as Simon bar Jona. One of the best examples is John 1:42:
" 'Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas' which is interpreted Peter."
Here, John himself gives us the name-translation of Cephas and Peter. No, there is no doubt that Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas/Petros/Peter. There is no doubt that we have the correct Aramaic translation for Peter. And that he was called "Rock".
Actually, the passage makes no sense if Jesus isn't founding the Church upon Peter. Firstly, that would mean that Simon's name was changed for nothing. You have to have a decent grasp of the OT and Jewish culture to understand the significance of a name change. *Only God had the power to change someone's name*. And, when He changed their name, he always gave them a mission. Always. (Remember Abram-Abraham?). If Jesus wasn't founding His Church on Peter, then one has to conclude He changed Simon's name for nothing. And God just didn't do that. It makes no sense in light of history and the OT. Secondly, Jesus' words to Peter in Matthew 16 parallel Isaias 22. The "Keys to the Kingdom" were given to the steward to take care of the kingdom in the absence of the King himself. There was only one kingdom, only one steward, and that steward had the keys. In Matthew 16, Jesus is making Peter the steward, and Jesus Himself is the king, and the kingdom Peter is to maintain is Jesus's Kingdom, His Church. To say that it was the keys to Peter's own church renders the entire giving of the keys nonsensical, because it ignores their significance.
So, Jesus had to be founding His own Church on Simon-called-Peter. Interpreting the passage any other way makes what Jesus did arbitrary and meaningless. It makes the entire scene nonsensical.
Tally.
ReplyDeleteI know of numerous name changes that signified "what the person was about" and Simons name was definately chained to "Peter". Thereis no questionPeter was chosen by Christ to set up his Church (Christianity) and there was no mention of a Pope(especially an infallible man who is called "Most Holy Father"!)
Peace
Celticgirl,
ReplyDeleteThere is also no mention of a Trinity and Three Persons in One God!
But no doubt the concept was there, even if it lacked a name.
Tally,
ReplyDeletePlease don't tell me that the Pope carries the same weight as the Holy Trinity?
We all know certain terminology was not used in scripture but Was spoken of ex:The Holy Trinity-the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit/Ghost....mentioned quite a lot! In the church hierarchy, Bishops were mentioned,,,but they were to be married and carry on the duties of the Church as a good steward but I don't see any mention of a Pope? do you?
Peace
But there is mention of a great Steward above the other stewards, a Bishop to rule the entire Church and the other bishops. It is mentioned many times. The title "Pope" may have come later, but the position was most certainly there from the beginning.
DeleteThe Pope *is* a bishop. He is the bishop of Rome, and of the entire Church. Peter's supremacy (which is a Pope's supremacy) is seen many, many times in the New Testament and the Early Church. There is Matthew 16, which explicitly names Peter as the steward of Christ's Church (ignore that passage as you will, that's what it says). And he was the *only one* to receive a name change and this mission, so that while other bishops may have also been stewards, they were not *the* Steward as was Peter.. We know Peter was above the other Apostles because his name is always listed first when they are listed--and sometimes his name is the only one listed ("Peter and the others"). John was the first to get to the tomb after the Resurrection, but he waited for Peter to enter (a sign of respect and superiority): John 20. He led the Council of Jerusalem, and it was to him that revelation concerning the initiation of the Gentiles came and was binding on the whole Church: Acts 15.
ReplyDeleteAlso, historically, when the Corinthians needed help against heresy, they could have written to John the Evangelist--who was still alive at the time and was surely a credible authority. But they didn't. They wrote to Pope Clement, because he was the Pope and as such his authority was greater.
There are numerous passages that set Peter apart.
(Also, bishops were not to be married. They could be, or they could not be, but there's nothing saying they had to be)
Tally,
ReplyDeleteIn reply to your first assertion, " Bishop to rule over the entire Church and other Bishops" that sounds like Catholic Catechism or Council Decrees. Where is this said?
Peter was always mentioned in the Gospels....with all the real important events
One of the first Apostles chosen
Walking on water/attempt
Mount of Transfiguration with James,John and Jesus
The last Supper and chosen to be in the garden which he and the same Apostles (seen above) fell asleep...they All wanted to know who was the best..was not revealed!
Tomb...it was odd Peter was not mentioned at the actual crucifixtion!
In Acts-- he was the head Apostle in Jerusalem and Paul and the others reported their Evangelizing to him! He was reprimanded by Paul in keeping some Jewish traditions. He did not want any bowing down or treating him as a superior person!
Boy, would Peter be shocked today!
Peace
It is not said in so many words. It is illustrated in the events--both Biblical and historical--in which Peter was obviously first among the Apostles. The passages you just mentioned all prove that he was first among the Apostles.
ReplyDeleteYes, who was the best was revealed. It was the one who is last, the one who serves others. The Pope is not some royal king that we carry around on a palate. He is a servant; he serves the entire Church, and devotes his all to guiding and protecting her.
Was it odd he wasn't there? Not really.
Was Paul's rebuke as to Peter's preference to observe Jewish Traditions in company with Jews a sign that Peter wasn't Pope? Not really. Basic interaction and table manners with others is not an infallible point of doctrine, so Paul wasn't correcting Peter on Papal matters. Actually, the fact that Paul thought his rebuking Peter was an important enough event to write down says a lot. Rebuking a peer is a commonplace thing, so why note it? But rebuking a superior on any matter is not very common, and so is automatically noteworthy.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteThe RC people put the Pope on such a level that he is called "his Holyness and Holy Father" (only words that can be used for God!) In their own writings" We Submit --He is caretaker of all souls" and Priest have been the power "higher than angels and archangels"!!!
I believe in God the Father and the Son--Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit! No mortal men can substitute for them. Grace is given by God and I defy you to find anything in the Holy Scripture that denies this!
Right now Pope Benedict XVI is down in Mexico/ Cuba and the World is watching is very move....so ecumenical! In this modern world that is the "only connection" to any feeling of Christ!!
Peace
Celtic,
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say we can call only God that?
I do not know where you read that, about priests and archangels. But I don't see why you would have a problem with it. Humans are "more powerful" than the angels in some respects. They have the ability to co-create with God and have kids. Angels can't do that. Humans are dignified because God Himself became Man. He never became an Angel. Priests have the power to consecrate the Host. Angela can't do that.
The priest doesn't substitute for Christ, as you very well know, so please leave off the pointless rhetoric. No one ever said that grace doesn't come from God--you were told upthread quite the opposite--so once again, please leave off the rhetoric.
I don't know what you mean by your statement that the Pope is in Mexico.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteIt is very obvious the problems Mexico is currently experiencinng--- drug cartels and the Priest sex abuse disasters. A RC country with immense "Social Injustices", that has to be addressed with Papal Civil attention!
I am not going to answer your rhetoric about ---who or what is /or not mentioned in Holy Scripture!
Look up the power that Catholic priest have---it is quite stunning what "Man" has delegated "the authority of God" in the name of "Consecration" !
I know what authority priests have, and it is not some fable made up by imaginative people for no reason.
ReplyDeleteIt is authority given to them by Christ Himself. Have YOU looked it up? There's a post or two on this very blog about it and I know we have discussed it before.
Rhetoric is when you ask a question but don't expect an answer. The accusations you have been making are outrageous (ie, Catholics don't believe grace comes from God) and which, as a former Catholic, you know are not true. Also, every time you receive an answer, you ignore what I have said and change the topic. That is why your "defiance" is rhetorical.
I've asked two questions so far. The first was an honest and simple query: how can you believe in something that isn't in the Bible, when you profess to believe only what is in the Bible? It took you 61 posts to answer it. My second query was also simple: can we accomplish or will good without God? And you never answered it. It wasn't rhetorical; I don't presume to know the answer, and I wanted the answer. You never gave it, or took a very long time in doing so.
Please take the discussion seriously if you wish to continue it. Do not lie about what Catholics believe, and do not ignore the points I make or change the subject. It is not respectful, and is very tiring. Again, I am willing to discuss such matters with you, provided we actually DISCUSS them.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteIf you do not like the answer, then take to the Vatican!
The information that I presented to you are valid Catholic claims!
Just because you, Tally Marx, donn't care for them...is unfortunate...but true!
You are saying that Grace is given by the Church through Christ...by using his Devine Authority. Basically you have to have the RCC for the "fullness" of Salvation!
We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Being justified freely through the redeemption that is in Jesus Christ!
By Grace through faith we are saved, not of yourselves, it is the Gift of God!
He did it ALL ...it's his Grace---I understand this now!
The Defiant One does not have the answer for "Is God behind everything good we do"--My answer is we were all given free will to accomplish good and bad.
If you choose to follow Christ, you will do good to be in his "Perfect Will"!!!
You want to have your name written in the Lamb's Book Of Life---to have everlasting life!
All that want eternal life is believe on him "Christ"...God's Power unto Salvation!
Peace
Celtic,
ReplyDeleteIt sounded as though you had a skewed understanding of what the Church teaches. It sounded as though you were under the impression that Catholics believe grace doesn't come from God. I had a problem with that accusation. However, I see now that you are more fully aware of what the Church teaches--that the grace of God can be obtained through the Church (and even not all grace is obtained so). I do not have a problem with this teaching; you, apparently, do.
Now, we were discussing the Pope. I have already showed you that Peter held more authority than the other Apostles, and told you that the Pope is NOT a substitute for Christ (a misconception you seem to hold). What exactly is your problem with Christ having given us a Pope?
Tally,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think Christ gave us the Pope?
I want you to see an ancient Doctrine that RCC used for years until modern history...because it was too scary to deliver to ordinary Catholics!
The Fewness of the Saved
As a Catholic (not you) many priests, and higher up....and many RC people will not be saved. Of course, if your not RC ---You don't stand a chance!
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeleteIn their words "The GRACE of God is 'deposited' in the Church", how amazing!
This IS the reason why you are RC. Everyday exploration into their Own writings is needed by ALL to see what this Church is about. Before submitting your intellect and free will probing is necessary. Faith is a gift from God alone....He is EVERYTHING! The Church is his bride, not the Christ. It is so....imperative to follow scripture....after all, this is the inspired word of God, not the inspired word of MAN!
Peace
The Fewness of the Saved? Please elaborate. What do you mean by that?
ReplyDeleteHow do I know Christ gave us a Pope? Because the Bible tells us so, in Matthew 16.
No one ever submits their free will to anything or anyone; it is impossible.
Catholics do follow Scripture. Perhaps not your fallible and rather vain interpretation of it (see blog post above), but Catholics do follow Scripture.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you have to believe in Apostolic succession---having a fellow Cardinal elected by his Cardinal peers to be the Pope---Do you call that AS?
As far as Matthew 16, there is no mention of a Pope Peter.
There is a vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit, he is our representative of Christ!
Remember in Matthew---we are Not to call any man "Father on Earth"...there has not been a valid excuse for this abomination.
I believe that RCatholics follow scripture and maneuver them with their Catechism and Canon laws in combination with Majesteriun and Tradition.
This is even more proof to believe in Holy Scripture Alone!
The Scripture is not myth!
Peace
PS did you investigate The Fewness of the Saved?
Matthew 16 does not mention the word "Pope," as previously stated. But it clearly puts Peter in that position. If you do not think that is what is happening, then please explain what you think the passage means.
ReplyDeleteAfter we discuss this, then we can discuss the "call no man father" matter.
"I believe that RCatholics maneuver Scripture...this is even more proof to believe in Holy Scripture Alone."-celticgirl
Celtic, did you even read the blog post you are commenting on? I don't think you did. It would do you good to read it. You don't like the Church's interpretation of Scripture, but that is only because it doesn't sync with YOUR interpretation. You have absolutely no reason to believe that YOU have the correct and non-twisted interpretation of Scripture. Absolutely none. But you still think you are right. You think you are more correct than everyone else in the world who disagrees with you. THAT method, the method of Sola Scriptura, is more prone to error. It is vain, pompous, and selfish. The above post explains why.
I did a cursory search on the "Fewness of the saved". It seems to have been most spoken of by St. Leonard, but I doubt it was ever actually doctrine. What is your problem with it?
Tally,
ReplyDeletePeter was directed by Christ to start his Church. We as Christians in the 21st century have no control of the past. Iam sure ine the first 200 years of Christianity things were following Apostolic teaching before the universal Church seized the church and made it a government/religion where there was papal dominance. Rome was such a center pf pagen religion, surely that melded into the creation. Somewhere around the 7th century all ceremonialism and ritualism had sunk in and started a path to ante-popes, corruption, idolatry.
I suppose there are over a billion Roman Catholics that disagree but maybe the "little flock" have it right! There is a great deal of nun's an priest that would give their lives up to defend the "Mother Church"
This business with Tamuz and Athrodite andEmpress Helena posted on the internet is quite provocative and silly.
After the doctrine of The Fewness Of Salvation was abandoned--there was reports of many "black priest vestments burned" at churches trash bins.odd
Well, I guess I should end this for tonight...Peace
Speaking of Helena, on the old forum, Constatine seemed like a touchy subject with the Roman Catholics!
So, basically, Jesus established the Church and made Peter the head of it and all that jazz...and then Jesus just abandoned it? Everything He made and did, the whole mission thing, He just let it fall to ruin and get taken over by bad people? You really think that Satan got ahold of what Jesus did, what He established, and destroyed it? Tell me, please, what you make of the phrase "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". And tell me, please, Jesus was great enough to save and protect the Bible, but not the Church He founded.
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDeleteJesus IS coming back and he will judge the "living and the dead"!
When he comes, nobody knows when but God, the Father--- He is coming! Anyone that perverted or changed his gospel will be condemned in his judgement. This includes ALL humankind, no restrictions.
Jesus created Christianity and the "gates of he-ll will not prevail against it"!
He never said WHEN he is to return but whe he does "the prince of the air" or possibly "an angel of light" will be destroyed!
Peace
This was a grave and heavy response...do not be alarmed you are a true believer in Christ---just be careful of certain attachments!
Celtic:
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you are talking about now.
In your previous post (the one before last) you said, basically, that you think Christ was too weak to protect the Church He founded, or that He was to apathetic and uncaring about His mission to do so. I was wondering why you think this.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteNo, you were the only one who mentioned Christ as weak!
I have never said anything of that kind! He is omnipotent...even on the cross he had the power to take him down from the Cross...but chose the WILL of the Father. What is this talk of apathy and non caring about his church?
When Christ ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father!--and remains there until his 2nd coming! He has left his Church the "power of the Holy Spirit" which is our comforter, helper, and advocate in all spiritual matters. The Holy Spirit convicts the sinner and brings them to God for forgiveness!
Peace
Jesus Christ had no problem with Bible Scriptures....40 days and nights being tempted by the devil...
ReplyDeleteHe responded "It Is Written"
The power of the Word!!!
Peace
Celtic: you implied that Christ was weak. You admitted He chose a Pope to lead His Church, but then said that He allowed Satan and evil to overcome the Church and the Pope. That means Christ was either apathetic toward the Church He founded, or that He was too weak to defend it.
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDeleteI never said that Christ chose a Pope to start his Church! Speaking of Pope, did you see the news that Castro will allow Good Friday to be celebrated this year only. Castro would not make a statement on whether Catholic schools would be allowed per request of the Pope.Pope Benedict also wishes the Embargo with the U.S. Would stop! Our country has to stay firm against the Communist Dictator regime of Castro no matter what the Vatican desires!
Peace
Celticgirl, then please explain what you meant when you said, on March 27, "Peter was directed by Christ to start his Church."
ReplyDeleteAnd if Jesus wasn't making Peter the head of the Church (as Pope), then what was He doing when he said "Thou art Peter..." and referenced Isaias 22?
Tally,
ReplyDeleteBasically the Isrealites were in judgment of God because of their carnal nature and disbelief in God and the afterlife. The words of the "keys given" are used in verse 22, to open the door. You mentioned how in the OT the Jews used "the keys" in our old forum and this is a good example.
Please elaborate on your meaning of the reference of "Thou art Peter..." and the correlation to the Pope and Isaiah 22!
Thank you,
Peace
Celticgirl, I elaborated already, upthread.
ReplyDeleteFirst, a small history lesson: in ancient times, households had stewards. A steward was a servant. He held the keys to the house's treasury; he was in charge of safeguarding all the valuables. He was the second-hand-man of the owner of the house, and when that owner traveled, it was the steward who was the one in charge. He was a servant, but he held a very important position. Now, the owners of houses weren't the only ones with stewards. The King had a steward as well. The King's steward did what all stewards do, just on a much larger and much more important level. The King's steward was second only to the King and the queen mother.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says, "Thou art Peter...". When Jesus says this, we know that something very BIG, very IMPORTANT, is about to happen. How do we know? Because only God could change someone's name, and He only changed their name when He gave them an very important mission. Here, we see Jesus is changing Simon's name. So, we know that Simon (now Peter) is about to be given a VERY IMPORTANT mission. What is this mission? It is being Jesus' steward!
How do we know that Jesus is making Peter His steward? Well, because Jesus clearly references Isaias 22, and Isaias 22 is all about a man named Eliacim being made the steward of the Jewish kingdom. Jesus words in Matthew 16:19 ("and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven") echo the words of Isaias 22:22 ("and I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder"). Eliacim is being made steward of the Davidic kingdom here, and Peter is being made steward of Jesus' kingdom.
Jesus words in Matthew 16:19 ("and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed also in heaven") recalls Isaias 22:22 ("and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open"). The reference and meaning are very clear, and everyone hearing Jesus at the time would have known it. Peter was being compared to Eliacim. And Eliacim was a steward of the King. Therefore, Peter is also a steward of the King, but he's the steward of the King of King, Jesus Christ. He holds authority, not in the Davidic kingdom, as Eliacim, but in the Kingdom of Christ--the Church.
DeleteNow, there is a difference between the text in Isaias and the one in Matthew. In Isaias, Eliacim is referred to as a peg ("and I will fasten him as a peg in a safe place...") and a paragraph later, it is said that eventually this peg will fail, go away ("in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, shall the peg be removed"). And not only will the peg (removed, but the very position it held will go away ("and that which hung therein shall perish"). So, basically, what is being said here is that Eliacim is the steward now, but he won't always be steward, and someday there will be no steward. Now, read Matthew 16 again. Which in everything else, Eliacim and Peter seem to be the same, there is a difference: Peter is NOT referred to as a peg. What does this mean? Well, it means that, unlike Eliacim, Peter will not cease to be steward, and, unlike Eliacim, the position of steward will not perish. In other words, Peter is steward, and there will always be a steward.
Catholics call this stewardship the "Papacy" and they call the steward the "Pope". Different names for a concept that is very, very, very clear. There really is no dispute: There is a Pope, there always will be a Pope, and Peter was the first Pope.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting...how many people know this on earth?
Some names were changed by God ex: Abraham and Sarah, Jacob, and Peter.Most names during that period in history conveyed an attribute or characteristic such as Ruth (friend), Barabas, the( real son of God and salvation-Jeshua-Jesus)...the list goes on and on ...Hosea's children....etc.Even Peter BarJonah (3 days in the fish then Jonah was spit out...)a sort of reserection!
Enough of this Celticgirl..you are rambling!
This stewardship/servant like Potifor that made Joseph a servant before he became Prime Minister for Pharoh in Egypt?
Or was this like Mary--who was a servant/handmaiden of the Lord?
What do you think the Early Church Patriarchs thought of the Bishop Of Rome becoming the Pope (Bishop above the other Bishops?) I would have loved to be a fly on a olive press!
Peace
Tally
ReplyDeleteMan does not live by bread alone.....
But every WORD that comes from God.
Where do you get the sacred Word Of God?
I get mine from Holy Scripture!
Peace on this most Holy time when our savior was victorious from death hell and the grave,,,and gave us eternal life!
Your friend in Christ
CKelley
Somewhere in between Joseph and Mary, I think.
ReplyDeleteYou could have been a fly on the wall, but I doubt there would have been much to see. The Bishop of Rome didn't become the Pope, the Pope became the Bishop of Rome.
I don't cut God's Word in half and reject part of it for some unknown reason. I respect His Word as it is written AND as it is spoken.
I hope you've had a very blessed Holy Thursday, and will continue to be showed with graces during the Easter Triduum!
Tally
ReplyDeleteAt some chronological point in time....an office of the Papacy was established and posthumously Peter was named the "first Pope"!
How else could the term "Apostolic Succession" be appropriated into the Holy Roman Empire?
It comes down to Papist believers and non Papist believers...which for over a thousand years ALL Christendom was Roman Catholic...!
Today is the day...always to be memorialized and everyday thought of until we die!
Peace
Excuse me? "Posthumously"? Did I not just explain how Jesus made Peter the steward (Pope) of His Church? Posthumously, fiddlesticks! It is right there in the Bible. The terminology may have been applied to the position at a later date, but the position was most certainly there from the beginning. It's right there in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that scripture refers to Mary as the "ark" in the NT? Where in the OT there was the ark of the covenant(inside lies the Holy of Holy's)
--the steward of OT is Pope of NT?
Kind of convoluted questioning...
Peace
Question:
Do you think that Christ visited Hell before the 3rd day?
Celtic, I do not like bouncing from subject to subject, so I will save your first question for later.
ReplyDeleteAs to your second question, yes, with the main difference being that one was the steward of a country and beholden to a human king, and the other is the steward of the Church and beholden to the King of Kings.
As to your last question: yes.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteWhat do these men have in common:
Pious XI
Pious XIi
John XXIII
Paul XVI
John Paul I
John Paul Ii
Benedict XVI
They all became Popes after the ...Treaty.They all have power over the ....
They brought in the ...
They all represent a ...in Bible profecy!
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeleteThe Lying Pen Of The Scribe- Jeremiah 8:8
Good try with your explanation of why The RCC used Penance vs. Repent!
Translating Grrek into Latin---Done
There should be no mistake....
This is the lying work of a scribe!
What is the reasoning....to keep the masses of RC people dependent on Man(Traditions) instead of Christ!
Shame and Deceitful..
I pray for anyone alive who distorts the scripture...I do not pray for the dead..they have been delta with in their SIN!
Peace
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCeltic, I do not see any legitimate problem with the translation. Do you know Latin? If so, please enlighten me as to your problem with the translation.
ReplyDeleteI also ask you to stop speaking of Catholics as though they have been duped. We are neither stupid, nor ignorant. I have so far presented you with the explanations of two doctrines (Oral Tradition and the Pope) and you have been unable to refute either of them; in light of this, it might be wise to give us some credit.
As for your first post, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you still have a problem with Peter being Pope, please say it explicitly.
Happy Easter, Celtic! Christ is RISEN!!! Christus, victoris de mortis, en saecula saeculorum. Amen!
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDeleteBehold!
He has Risen....the Power of God unto Salvation!
Amen
I do not know Latin, but I can make out some words.
I took Greek Etymology in school which has been very helpful!
Peace
Then what is your objection to the translation, Celtic?
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDeleteI revisited Excatholics....very taken over...but I viewed the video on "The Penance Scandel"!
This presentation confirmed what I have known about the changes made in Duay Rheims and Jerusalem Bible into the New American Standard Bible. I even got out an old Vulgate and found the Catholics had changed PENANCE back to REPENT in the newer Catholic Bibles.
No matter what your learned mouth states....many bible reading RC's were mislead in context!
This makes Celticgirl very upset!
If the average Joe read this ... They would think they had to make payment for their sin/sins instead of turning away from their "wicked ways"---
Peace
My dear, once again, the translation is valid. Paenitentia can be rendered both repentant and penitent. You can look it up in the dictionary. The problem is not with the translation, but with your definition and idea of penance and repent. You see them as two separate things, but they are not. I'll say that again: they are *not* two separate things, anymore than drinking and swallowing are two separate things. Do you know anything of history? When one repented, they offered sacrifice. When one offered sacrifice, it was because they had repented of their sins. The two went together, never alone. This was the case in the Jewish culture, and in the Christian religion until the 1500s. It is still the case with the Catholic Faith. No Catholic would have been misled by a "bad translation". Rather, you have been misled by a misunderstanding of what it means to turn away from one's sins. You see a difference that no one else sees; that is why you do not understand the translation.
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteMy Dear I can tell you millions of people see the difference from penance to repent!
Your translation-Latin will be observed by "birds of a feather"and that's o.k. !
I suppose you can be contrite and confess your sins to a man (who may have sins greater than you). Do it..that's o.k.
Peace
Catholics don't see a difference, Celtic. Catholics know that penance and repentance are both parts, which must go together and cannot be alone. We know that, be it illustrated in Latin or merely known by theology. What makes you think there is a difference? Why should doing penance be separate from being repentant?
ReplyDeleteTally,
ReplyDeleteThe Christians feel that Repent means"to turn away from"' --this is a very vital part of their walk with God. It keeps the flock obedient and keeps from repeating further sins. There is not the weekly escape plan that RC people use with the "separation" of sin in Communion!
Because of Christ death on the cross, we do not have to sacrifice,like the Jews of the OT but confess our sins to the Lord. This is the access we have now acquired by grace through faith!
Peace
Celtic, Catholics DO say you need to "turn away from" your sin. We never, ever said otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are right! We do not need to sacrifice like the Jews of the OT. Jesus is our Sacrifice. But why do you think we do not need to participate in that sacrifice?
Tally
ReplyDeleteIn Hebrews (5x) in Romans(1x) in Peter(1x) ......he was sacrificied ONCE!
How dare we re present his FINISHED work on the cross?
I do not care about acting out the GREATEST gift to mankind, in all it's ceremonial humanistic "pomp & glory"!
Who are we to do so?
Why do you think you can add to his utterly complete and perfect sacrifice?
Peace
To re-present something is not to do it again. Nor is the Mass acted out. In fact, there is only *one* Mass. Only one. And that is the Sacrifice on Calvary. When a Catholic goes to Mass, they are not attending another Mass--they are entering into an Immortal Moment. They are on Calvary. Our God is an Almighty God with the power to transcend time, and that is just what He does. When we are at Mass, He picks us up, where we are at right now, and places us on Calvary. So, no, we are not "acting out" the greatest moment in history. We are *actually there*! Why does God make us actually there? Because we have to participate in the Sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteJesus' Sacrifice is complete, because He will never die again. But it is not complete *for us* until we participate in it. I explained in the past to you that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb, remember? Well, the Paschal sacrifice was not completed until one partook of the lamb. It wasn't until they had eaten of the lamb that the sacrifice was over for them. They *had* to eat the lamb. Now, Jesus is our Lamb, and the Sacrifice isn't over until we have partaken of Him. If we do not partake of Him, the Sacrifice isn't over for us, and will not help us. It's like having a complete and utterly perfect cancer-curing drug, but refusing to take the last dose. The Mass is necessary because it is necessary that we partake of the Lamb. If we don't do this, Jesus' Sacrifice can't help us. "Amen, Amen, I say to you, if you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you will not have life within you."
Tally
ReplyDeleteChrist work was finished on the cross. He is the same yesterday, today, an forever. We are instructed to worship him in SPIRIT and TRUTH and not as a sacrificial offering! I have a long explanation from a former RC priest on his interpretation of transubstantiation and the mass. Combining the explanation and scripture, there is no doubt we are supposed to eat his flesh and drink his blood ( symbolic ) not literal! Your apologetic writing is very good and is very Roman Catholic!
I do not think the Jew's observe Passover the same as originally performed...the lamb kept for days, killed and eaten and the blood brushed on the door posts and lintel...and not to leave the house overnight!
Our Lamb of God has been sacrificed and in memory of him we take communion as often as we can!
Peace
"Christ's work was finished on the Cross." --Agreed. He will never have to come to earth, in Time, and die again.
ReplyDelete"We are instructed to worship Him in spirit and truth..." --Spot on.
"...and not as a sacrificial offering." --I'm sorry, but this is wrong. It is incorrect on several levels. The first being that "worship" in the Biblical sense is composed of four PARTS: Petition, Adoration, Reparation, and Thanksgiving. These parts together was *Sacrifice*. How did the Jews worship God? Sacrifice. How was the Old Covenant ratified? With Sacrifice. When was it ratified? Every year, as the Pasch. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to do away with it. (this idea of sacrifice as worship, and the necessity for sacrifice, was not done away with. In fact, worship was equated with Sacrifice until the fifteen hundreds. The idea that worship is anything other than PART is a new idea). It was merely fulfilled: enter, the New Covenant., the New Sacrifice. Secondly, we know that Jesus is the New Paschal Lamb because of the *numerous* parallels between He and the Lamb, not to mention the fact that He referred to His suffering as the Fourth Cup (I went through how and why Jesus is the Paschal Lamb on exCatholics; please tell me plainly if you need me to go over it again). So, no, there is no doubt that sacrifice was required for the New Covenant, and there is no doubt that Jesus was/is that Sacrifice. He is the Paschal Lamb.
"In memory of Him we take communion." --Nope. Sorry. The Old Covenant is now the New Covenant. The old lambs are now Jesus Christ. The old Pasch is now the Mass. And just as the Old Covenant wasn't ratified and the sacrifice incomplete until the Lamb was partaken of, so is the New Covenant not ratified for us (personally) until we partake of the Lamb.
"....drink His blood (symbolic) not literal.". ---please read my posts on this very blog, entitled "How Did His Disciples Take It?" and "The Flesh is of No Avail". Then please explain to me how Jesus could have meant that figuratively.
Tally
ReplyDeleteThe Dogma "That the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one sacrifice"----that is what Roman Catholics believe to be infallible!
So I do not see that arguing(debating) with a Catholic is even possible!
The Church is final with this thinking!
The greatest thing that Reformation delivered was the ability for the "Everyman" to read Holy Scripture for himself...and not to be enslaved to a Relgious Heirarchal System.
Believe me, their are many false prophets in the Protestant ranks...truly scary.
New agers, Mysticism, Emerging Church with the possibility of a One World Church (not as outlandish as it sounds!)
Who is the controller?
Peace
Celtic, go back through my posts, everyone of them, on this blog and the other site. Have you ever heard me say in answer to any question or objection, "The Church says so, so shut up"? No. You haven't. I do not believe things blindly. Catholics do not believe things arbitrarily. If we believe it, there is a reason for it. "The Church says so," is an exercise in obedience, but it is not the reason we believe what we do. There is, therefore, a very great point in "arguing and debating" the matter. I wish to discuss the matter because I am willing to see your side of it. Are you too biased/selfish to listen to mine?
ReplyDeleteWe went over Sola Scriptura already. It is a man-made doctrine of relativism that leads to each person thinking they are infallible and that everyone else is wrong. It is a selfish, vain, new idea and it ignores the Biblical command to cling to Oral Tradition.
You are trying to insult me. You are saying that I am blind and incapable of thinking on my own. Know this, Celtic--I would believe in the teachings of the RCC even if there was no such thing as a Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because I have taken to time to ask "what" and "why" these teachings are, and I honestly, intellectually agree with them. They make *sense*. I do not believe things simply because I wish to (as do you with Sola Scriptura). I believe them because they make sense. I do not believe them because I am blind and brainwashed. I believe them because I agree with them. Do you understand? You and I have gone over three points of doctrine here, and you have not given me any legitimate defense of your side on any point. I insist that you begin giving Catholics and myself more credit. Stop insulting us.
What makes you think Jesus is not the Paschal Lamb? What makes you think He was speaking symbolically in John 6? Please provide a Scriptural/historical explanation.
Tally
ReplyDeleteI apologize if I seemed deneening in any way! You are obviously very intelligent and know Catholicism extremely well!
First, God is a Spirit.
We are told...to live carnally is death...to live in the spirit is life and peace.
We are told to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.
The flesh profiteth nothing.
What does this tell us......Look to the Spirit!!!
Eternal life. Everlasting life-----SAVATION.....this is the key! Jesus carries THESE keys!
Secondly, Jesus is the lamb of God..,,the ultimate pure,unblemished profitciation to the Father! I pray those words every night "lamb of God"!
Thirdly, Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine of Relativism leading all to infallibility....very bold commentary. The infallible Dogmas of the RCC could not be contradicted. Therefore, the Vatican sent out it's soldiers (Jesuit order) to combat Reformation---"CounterReformation"!
Peace
Celtic...
ReplyDeleteThe flesh is of no avail, indeed. But JESUS' flesh...well, I don't think you would want to argue that His Flesh is useless. Or do you? Please read my blog post entitled "The Flesh is of No Avail".
And yes, Jesus is the Lamb of God. You keep saying that, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Do you know what it means to be "the Lamb"?
Sola Scriptura was invented in the 1500s. How is it *not* relativistic and vain? It says "read it and if you think it says ____, then that's what it says and it doesn't matter what other people or the Church says.". It either means everyone is right, or you yourself are a prophet. The fact that you believe it when there is no proof for it, proves its vain relativism.
Tally
ReplyDeleteThe "lamb" was the perfect sacrifice. In the OT when the Jews were escaping the Angel Of Death they used a lamb for their sacrifice. Since that time Moses delivered the Jews in the great Exodus, they have honored Passover in Jerusalem. All the Jewish males went to Jerusalem for Passover at Jesus' time.
I will say it again, eat his flesh,drink his blood....in SPIRIT!
I have read your interpretation of John 6 and others. i wish you could read what I saw! Very convincing......
We have to remember the RCC has evolved since it's conception---different doctrines and Popes, and Councils. Certain Doctrines became Dogmas....what I am saying...it didn't come about overnight!
What are your thoughts about the end of the Church and the last Pope?
There is great speculation that Benedict XVI is the last official Pope. Do you or any of your peers have any thoughts on this subject?
Peace
Celtic,
ReplyDeleteThe lambs were spotless and without blemish. None of their bones were broken when they were killed. They were cooked on two pieces of wood that skewed their bodies along the spine and through the shoulders (in other words, on a cross). The Passover was celebrated once a year. The Jews did not believe that they were re-enacting it, but spoke as though they were present at the first Exodus. The children were taught to ask, "Why do we eat unleavened bread and roast lamb on this night?" and the father would respond, "It is because of what the Lord did for ME when *I* came out of Egypt.". The Passover was the ratification of the Old Covenant. If you were to be a part of it, you had to take part in the Passover. The Passover was not completed until the fourth cup was drunk and the lamb was eaten. Not a symbol of the lamb, not a lamb shaped cookie, but the lamb itself. You called Jesus the "Lamb of God". You know what the implications of that are, right?
Why do you think Jesus meant that figuratively? The disciples took Him literally, and He let them walk away. That means He let them walk away on a misunderstanding. That was out of character. The last time someone took Him literally and He was speaking figuratively, He was careful to explain. ("How can a man enter into his mother's womb again?" "You must be born again *of water and spirit*"). It is also sort of cruel. Some Teacher! He can't even explain Himself adequately. Again, why do you think this? Why do you think "eat my flesh and drink my blood" are figurative? And how does it being figurative at all mesh with Jesus being the Lamb of God?
The only people who would believe that Ben16 is the last Pope, are those who believe the world is going to end this December. They are crazy. And the Church's doctrine doesn't evolve. "Evolve" means to change from one thing into something else. The Church's teachings have never changed. The Church grows, as our understanding of truth grows. Of course it didn't come about overnight. God doesn't work that way! He didn't send Jesus right after Adam sinned, did He? Or right after He revealed Himself to Abraham? No. God reveals truths slowly and in the fullness of time.
Tally
ReplyDeleteTo begin, we are not to observe the feasts of Judaism. We know that all throughout the OT Christ was foreshadowed and Passover with the sacrifice of the lamb was "huge!" Christ sacrifice is the centerpiece of Christianity!
Secondly, The Apostles did not know at The Last Supper what exactly Jesus was saying-Eat mt Flesh Drink my Blood/this was against their law. It is against Gods' law and we worship him in Spirit and in Truth, thus the RCC uses a bloody immolation.
Thirdly, you have to be a secular pagen to believe the world will end in December! That would be believing in Mayan gods and no true Christian would believe this...this is popular secular belief! After all "no one knows the date or the time"....but what about the Pope? Do not give me "the gates of hell will not....
How about Catholic theologian profecies?
Peace
Correction
ReplyDeleteUnbloody immolation
"We are not to observe the feasts of Judaism." --We don't. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled, and we now celebrate the New Covenant.
ReplyDelete"Christ's sacrifice is the centerpiece of Christianity." --The lamb of the Old Covenant was a type of the Lamb of the New Covenant (Jesus). You cannot understand Jesus' Sacrifice...you cannot understand Jesus' being the Lamb of God, unless you understand it in light of the Old Covenant. You called Jesus the Lamb of God, but you don't understand what that title means. I've told you before, and apparently you have forgotten. I will not repeat myself unless you prove you are willing to actually listen.
"The Apostles did not know at the Last Supper what Jesus was saying..." --Yes they did! They understood Him to be speaking literally in John 6, and though they did not fully understand how what Jesus was saying was true, or what it meant He had to endure and accomplish, they certainly understood in a literal way "This is my Flesh; This is my Blood.". There is absolutely no evidence they understood this figuratively. It didn't matter if it was "against their law.". Jesus did many things that were "against their law" and as I said in the other blog post...the Jews were forbidden to drink blood because they believed that in doing so you assumed the life of the one whose blood it was. There was no point in assuming the life of a mortal. But the Apostles knew Jesus was the Christ, that He was God. They knew He was immortal, and that He wanted them to have eternal life. To drink His divine blood was to gain eternal life. They would have had no qualms about drinking His blood, because it had nothing to do with their law (which was concerned with the blood of mortals). You keep saying that it was all figurative. Prove it.
"the RCC uses in bloody immolation." --it is un-bloody in that nothing physical is killed. However, Jesus' blood is literally present under the appearance of wine, and His flesh under the appearance of bread. To say that there is no blood is wrong; Jesus' blood is present. He made it so, and made it to appear as wine.
I've never heard about these prophecies, but I am certain they have no basis. Church Militant will not end until Time itself does, and Church Militant cannot lack a Pope.
Tally
ReplyDeleteYou also, really do not know if the Apostles took Christ words literally or figuratively!
I do know Jesus was the"lamb of God"! In fact I could know nothing about the OT covenant and laws....and know that Christ was our Sacrificial Lanb. He took our place for sin on the tree(cross) permanently, not like the OT Jew's that had their sins atoned for by a common lamb temporarily!
There is a 10-12th century prelate named St Malochi or Maloche or Maloky ???
Of Ireland who knew all the names of Popes after the papacy of his time. This information was kept with the descriptions of thier (crest-not the correct word)!
I have never met a Catholic who would talk about it without dismissing it as "folklore" Seems odd to me! He stops his profecying at Benedict-the "olive tree"! Stunning revelation!
Peace
Celtic, I gave good reasons in my blog post as to how and why everyone took Jesus' words literally. Not only have you failed to explain why my proofs are inadequate, you have failed to provide any of your own. Again, WHY do you think Jesus meant His words figuratively, and WHY do you think everyone understood them so?
ReplyDeleteIf you didn't know about the lamb of the Old Covenant, you wouldn't see why Jesus is called a sacrificial lamb, because you wouldn't know that lambs were sacrificed. As it is, you do know something of the Old Covenant and you do accept Jesus as our Lamb. I find that funny, though, because for all you keep saying He is the Lamb...you keep denying that He is. "He isn't a lamb in this respect, and He isn't one in that respect.". What's the point of calling Him the Lamb, if you are just going to deny all the ways in which He is a lamb?
As for that "prophecy". It isn't folklore. It is a genuine 16th century forgery. Some guy 'discovered' it in the sixteenth century (though it had never been heard of before) and claimed it came from some St. Malachi who lived in the 1200s. It isn't a list of Pope's names, but a list of short "descriptions" of them. All the descriptions from the 1200s to the time the guy came out with the paper matched the Popes who had been elected. But since the paper came out, people have been grasping at straws to make the descriptions fit the Popes they supposedly describe. In other words, it isn't a prophecy. It was forged in the hopes of making some other guy Pope (he didn't become Pope). It's a failed forgery. It's fake.
Tally
ReplyDeleteOne thing is for sure....there were many forgeries in Catholic history....one of the biggest cases was "The Donation of Constantine". It was proven a fake the Latin language was written centuries later.
As far as literal vs figurative with flesh/blood--I suppose we will never know. You gave a strong argument for literal and I have heard equally strong commentarys on figurative reading!
I personally do not believe the Apostles thought they were actually"eating his flesh" when they ate "the bread"......and drinking his"blood" when they drank "wine " from his cup. He made it so clear "in Memory of me!"
This is The New Covenant and not the "animal sacrifice" Old Covenant!
God sent his Son to be a substitute(ransom) for our sins,,,,and through his precious blood ...it is DONE!
As for people who have little knowledge of the OT, they may not get the full meaning of the "lamb" but as long as they "believe on him " they will be justified!
Peace
We will never know? You mean, Jesus said, "Do this, or you won't have eternal life" and then made it to where we'll never know what to do?! That's so cruel!
ReplyDeleteAnd you just "personally believe"? Truth isn't personal, Celtic. It is or it isn't, and it is so for everyone. I can "personally believe" that God doesn't exist...but where would that leave me?
"In memory of me." We repeat those words at the Consecration. They are not incompatible with a literal interpretation.
No, it isn't the animal sacrifice, because Jesus isn't an animal. He is an Infinite God, and so His Sacrifice is infinite (need only be performed once). But in every other way, His Sacrifice is the same as the OC's lamb. It makes no sense to call Him "the Lamb of God" and then deny all the ways in which He is the lamb. He either is, or He isn't. You can't cherry-pick truth at your personal discretion.
Tally
ReplyDeleteThis is a distortion of what I have been saying.
Look at the recent debate of Cardinal Pella in Australia where he comments against the Jews.
The Atheist debater made him look unholy. I saw the video of this exchange.
You must believe on Christ alone and his finished work at Calvary!
All of the consecrations, in all the cities, everyday do not equal when he says "do this in memory of me" with the wine being the symbol of his blood and the bread being a symbol of his body. This is the believers memorializing his "perfect sacrifice"!
Peace
"You must believe on Christ alone and his finished work on Calvary." --we do.
ReplyDeleteAnd I cannot understand the rest of your paragraph, sorry. Please re-phrase.
Tally
ReplyDeleteWhat do you not understand? I am not being sarcastic!
This has really nothing to do with Sola Scriptura,,,but maybe not, considering it is the story of a Baptist minister!
The Titanic sinking was 100 years ago and I heard the story of John Harper. A Baptist minister, a widow, with a 6 year old girl, who was moving from London to Chicago. When the Titanic was sinking,he placed his child on a lifeboat and gave up his seat an vest to help others with Savation. His final words as he clung on to debris(witnessed by survivors) was "whosoever believes in Christ Jesus shall be saved"-----
Peace
I did not say you were being sarcastic. I said I could not understand what you are saying. "All the consecrations in all the cities everyday do not equal when he says...." <----I do not understand this sentence. Please rephrase it.
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteI was going back to the communion consecration where the Catholic Priest calls down Christ by the power of God that he has been entrusted because of his connection to the Catholic Church(through Apostolic succession- Peter being the first Pope). This is the only valid way (according to Catholic law that we can participate in Holy Communion with the Lord. I suppose all non-RC ppl DO NOT have valid communion, they can memorialize with their bread and wine to no avail!
Let me know if I should elaborate more?
Have you seen the famous picture of Bill Clinton receiving Communion from JPII?
A picture is worth a 1000 words!
Peace
You are correct in your statement concerning the Eucharist. Only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Only at a true Mass does on enter into the Immortal Moment and find themselves present at Calvary, ratifying the New Covenant. Catholics have Jesus' Body and Blood. Others have bread and wine (or grape juice and goldfish, as some use). Yes. What do you mean to say by pointing this out?
ReplyDeleteHaven't seen it. But I have a friend who is a Photoshop whiz. He told me that it is possible to take a picture of a woman who is completely clothed and, by simply adding the right colors, make her look totally naked. I don't trust photos much after that. They are only worth the 1,000 words you choose to read into them, anyway, 1,000 words of relative opinion never said much to me.
Tally
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about the Orthodox Christians that believe too, they have valid communion and Apostolic succession? The Pope has called them people of "Faith"! Popes historically did not believe this,,,,this was always referred to as an "Apostacy"from the true faith.
The Orthodox church is also a "works" system with their sacraments...very similar to the RCC minus The Papacy!
The site I saw the Clinton picture....my guess it was NOT a fake!
Peace
I do not see how this topic (or the photo) fits in with our discussion. Why do you believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said, "This is My Flesh...If you do not drink the blood of the Son of Man you will not have life within you.". Why do you believe this is figurative? Do you believe it for any reason other than that you want to?
ReplyDeleteThe RCC is not a "works system". It does not halve things as you do. We teach/have faith AND works. Not one or the other, but both. Faith without works is dead, and works without faith is also dead. We teach/have BOTH.
Tally
ReplyDeleteSee Romans 11:6 Grace with works is no longer Grace: paraphrased.....
The only Grace is from Christ , not of MAN'S works!
Christ says in the scripture to worship HIM in SPIRIT and in TRUTH!
When he said to take Communion in memory of him, this ordnance was in Spirit!
Again, Ephesians : By grace, through faith, not of yourselves-it is the Gift of God, not of work, lest any man should boast! (this shows that it is Gods grace and not prideful man's sin!
Peace
Celtic, that is not what that verse says. It is condemning *pride* in works, not the works themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn Ephesians, Paul was speaking of works of the Law. He was condemning the works prescribed by the Jewish Law, not good works. Jesus Himself says that we must do good works if we wish to ever see heaven!
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world. Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.' Then He shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devils and his angels. Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me." -Matthew 25. Those who did good works went to heaven; those who didn't went to hell. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are saved by faith alone. We are cautioned not to boast of our works, 'this true, and likewise we are cautioned against the dangers of faith, for "Faith without works is dead." -James 2
You keep saying it is figurative, but you have yet to prove why.
You kept saying "Sola Scriptura, and Oral Tradition is bad." but you have yet to prove why.
You said Peter wasn't Pope, but in the face you proof you had no evidence against it.
All these problems you have with the Church..,you don't have them because the Church's teachings are wrong or unreasonable. You don't believe what you believe because it is reasonable. You believe what you believe simply because *you want to*.
Tally
ReplyDeleteDo you not believe God was speaking to US in the NT?
Look at Ephesians 2:1
You are DEAD in your sins- paraphrased
You are dead in your traditions!
Christ condemned the Pharisees for their faith in their Traditions and not the "Written Word"!
Read Romans 5:1
Therefore, being justified by FAITH we have life and peace.
Faith without works is dead in James 2 is the free gift given by the Holy Spirit...we do good works for our Lord--it comes automatically to believers:good works!
Grace comes God !
Peace
Correction:
ReplyDeleteGrace comes from God!
Tally
ReplyDeleteSee Jeremiah 9:23-24
Boast, Boast, Boast
No matter excuse you give, Ephesians 2:8-9 is a very informative scripture on Faith through the Lords Grace instead of "Our Work"!
In Isiaih we are told "Our works are like 'Filthy Rags, in the eyes of God! "
That says everything!
Peace
Firstly: Since when does sin equal tradition? You are not paraphrasing--you are changing Scripture to make it say what you want. Secondly: Christ condemned the Pharisees for their traditions (little "t"); their man made customs and motions-without-heart. He does not condemn Tradition (big T); those Oral teachings which were given us and which help us grow in Faith.
ReplyDeleteYou do not have faith without good works. They go together, and are equally important. "Good works come automatically to believers," eh? Then tell me, if our faith gives us all the grace we need to do good works, why aren't we good *all the time*?
Jesus clearly praised good works. He even praised the good works of the Samaritan, who wasn't a believer and didn't have faith. The only time good works are condemned is when they aren't good in the heart--when they are done for materialistic reasons and distance us from God. That is the only time. Works are not condemned in the Bible, but certain attitudes toward them are. Twist the meaning as you want, that is a fact. Good works are not condemned.
Tally
ReplyDeletePerhaps, I made it unclear --I was paraphrasing Ephesians 2:1 you are dead in your sins....I added Traditions(not scriptural)!
Something to think about:
Faith yields Works. Works does NOT yield Faith
Our merit is nothing in God's eyes ... It's like straw, hay, and stubble---burned up before a Holy God!
We cannot earn salvation...it is freely given to us through the Lord's GRACE!
Peace
Homework:
ReplyDeleteRead Romans 4- talks about the righteousness of Christ imputed on Abraham for his Faith, not works!
I just finished mine!
Peace
Celtic,
ReplyDeleteIn Romans 4, Paul is addressing the (heretical) belief that one must be a Jew, that one must follow the Jewish Law and fulfill its obligations, to have access to Jesus and to heaven. One became a Jew and considered themselves bound by the Law when they were circumcised. Paul obviously didn't believe in this heresy. That is why he uses the example of Abraham's circumcision. He's basically saying, "Abraham was justified before he was circumcised and began following the Law. Therefore, you don't have to be circumcised and follows the Jewish Law to be justified." Romans 4:14 says we aren't heirs of the law, but heirs of faith. THIS IS TRUE. We are heirs in belief in Christ, not in belief of the Jewish Law.
The point you seem to be missing, is that this passage in no way says good works are useless and have nothing to do with justification. He is saying the *Jewish Law* is useless and has nothing to do with justification, not works. The works born of the Jewish Law are useless, but the works born of our Faith in Christ are not. If good works are truly useless, and if Abraham had already completely gotten his salvation, then why did God tell Abraham to kill his son (which is an act, a work)? Why does James 2:21 say, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?"
Paul is speaking to people who want to follow the Jewish Law. Bring up all the passages you want that discuss this subject; I agree with them. But it is an off topic discussion. I am not saying we should follow the Jewish Law. I, like James, am saying that faith goes with good works, and you--like the people James is correcting--are arguing that good works aren't important to faith.
We are justified by BOTH faith and good works.
Romans 4 says Abraham was justified by faith.
James 2 says Abraham was justified by good works.
The only way they don't contradict each other, is to say both are correct. Deny one or the other, and you claim the Bible is contradicting yourself, one of them is wrong, and so the Bible is wrong.
And you didn't answer my question. If we are given the grace to do good works by our faith, why aren't we always good?
Furthermore, you misunderstand the meaning of salvation, and the Church's teaching on the matter. Salvation and redemption are two different things.
ReplyDeleteRedemption is what Jesus did when He suffered and died on the Cross. He opened the gates of heaven and made it *possible* for us to enter into heaven. We could never have done this. No amount of work we could ever do would have opened to gates of heaven. It happened whether we believe in it or not. We had nothing to do with Redemption.
However, just because it is possible for humans to enter heaven, doesn't mean every individual will enter heaven. An individual's entering heaven is called their *salvation*. We definitely do have something to do with this. We must have works AND faith to merit salvation.
So, the Redemption was not earned and was freely given to us through God's grace. But we must work out our salvation "in fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).
Tally
ReplyDeleteYou gave me much to think about....
The best I can tell you is basically,
Everything is done by the Grace of God through His Son.
He redeemed us ( paid for our sins) on the Cross! This is the only way to be saved ..to be with a Holy God in heaven. Only through the Son will we ever be with the Father!
Not all people will experience Salvation. See the scriptures on the (elect or chosen)off hand see Ephesians 1:13
Maybe John 15:16 I have to check on this!
I do believe too many people take a Humanistic approach to Salvation, thinking you can enter on your own merits!
Peace
Celtic, do you believe in free will?
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteYes, I do most certainly believe in free will...that is what God decided we should have, especially with our sinful nature. This will separate the "wheat from the tares"!
Peace
Okay. I was just wondering how free will fit into your belief that our works do not matter. Isn't belief, itself, a work? "Believing" is a verb, after all.
ReplyDeleteAnd, do you think that Paul and James were contradicting themselves? How do you reconcile those two passages?
Tally
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is YOU as a human being cannot do anything to obtain your Salvation ex( volunteering at the church, saying a rosary....)I's ALL his GRACE...and all you need to do is BELIEVE on HIM!
Do you believe Scripture is the "Inspired Word" of God?
Peace
Celtic, what is the basis for your belief that our salvation in by faith alone?
ReplyDeleteIf *you* believed that Scripture is the Inspired word of God, you would not insist that James is wrong in James 2.
Tally
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that Catholics think Holy Scripture is a "dead letter"!
That makes sense, with all the additions the RCC has made though their Traditions and Catechism!
I would not worry about any verse in James....there are many we can look at that show the RCC has used for their manipulations! I apologize if this seems harsh, but I just read a document that saddened me.
Peace
The body without the spirit is dead! All throughout James ::2 there are many examples Issac, Rehab of the OT to the poor man of the NT that works must accompany faith..., This is Good Works.
ReplyDeleteOur Salvation is given by His Grace by believing on Christ Jesus. The Grace that comes from the "all Holy One"....Not MAN!
Peace
Tally
ReplyDeleteOf course, we do good works that Jesus instructed during his 3 years of ministry. We know what is right. Just because one does Good Works does not grant him salvation. Only the Lord knows our true Faith. A true person of Faith willingly does good works to show "love and obedience to God!"
Abraham believed and obeyed...and was blessesd as "father to many!"
Peace
"Just because one does good works does not grant him salvation." --No one ever said that. But you are saying works are unnecessary, and there is no foundation for that assertion. If there is one, show it. And manipulations and "dead letters"? You, Celtic, are the one ignoring Scripture. You ignore every Scripture verse that doesn't jive with you pre-conceived idea of how God works....just like you are ignoring James 2.
ReplyDeleteAbraham was justified by his works--James 2.
Tally
ReplyDeleteThe only person on this earth that can make changes to scriptural readings based on "Faith and Morals"is:
The Vicar of Christ
You know I thought you would say that--"just because a person does good works is saved"" you failed to understand and convey what I said that--- God knows their faith!
Just a note--the Pope does not change scripture/he can deliver the meaning
Again, By grace we are Saved through FAITH not of yourselves, it IS the Gift Of God-not of WORKS, lest any man should BOAST!
What a scripture
Ephesians chater 2---extraordinary text by magnificent Apostolic writer!!!
Paul knew in his day...........................
Peace
That scripture is quite extraordinary....says it ALL!
Have you read a single thing I said?
ReplyDeletePaul was talking about works of the Law, and no one is arguing that the works of the Law justify them.
Rather YOU are asking if good works (period) justify us. James answered your question in his second chapter. Why are you ignoring it?
What's the point of having the infallible word of God if you are just going to ignore it?
Ephesians 2 is telling us that we were dead in our sins...and we can reconcile with Christ and be made alive with him!
ReplyDeleteAccepting, you are Alive in Christ goes along with being a New Creation in Christ.
This might not go along with RC teachings on Rebirth/Born Again.
Ephesians 2:8-9 directs us to the grace given by Christ and not ourselves and our work unto Salvation.
Clearly, wordily living--living in the flesh or carnal living and not living spiritually makes us dead ...there is no time restraint, yesterday, today or tomorrow!
Peace to you
Tally
ReplyDeleteWe need to talk about: in Johns gospel "The Word became Man" ---Jesus is the Word! Why would anything be changed....his Word was perfect given to the Apostles. If we truly obeyed God we would have NOT deviated from his WORD!
Peace
Clearly, we need BOTH works AND faith, not one or the other, for we are human beings with a body and a soul, and must work our salvation is not assured us, but must be worked out (via faith AND deeds) in fear and trembling. For someone who talks so highly of sticking to God's word, and listening to the Bible, etc. you sure do ignore a lot of Bible passages.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of your last posts....I don't understand what you are saying, please rephrase.
Tally
ReplyDeleteSee Psalm 138:2
Through his mercy and truth, He magnifies his Word over his name!
This shows how much God wants his Word to be central to his teaching!
He cannot tolerate as a Jelous God anything else!
Do to want to be accursed? Too much idolatry spread around in ALL organized religions!
Peace be with you
Spelling correction:
ReplyDeleteJealous
Test
ReplyDeleteTo prove your repentance(tuning away) we must show our "good works"----this is were James-faith without works is displayed!
ReplyDeleteBy Grace through FAiTH are we saved and Not by Works!
Thus, good works are shown through Salvation!
Peace
Turning away instead of tuning away
ReplyDeleteTypo errors grand champion!!!
Peace
How does the phrase "Abraham was justified by his works" at all mean that he merely proved said justification? It very clearly says he was justified by the works.
ReplyDeleteCeltic, unless you would argue the Bible contradictory and infallible, you must admit that we are justified by both faith AND works. I really do not understand why you have such a problem with this.
Tally,
ReplyDeleteYou know EVERYTHING changed with God became "Godman"!
The OT used Abraham and Issac, with father sacrificing his son (showing great faith-even though it was stopped by God)!
Even more importantly, Abraham showed his faith in belief that he was going to have a son in his "old age"!
About 2000 years ago, the New Covenant of Grace was established and:
By grace we are saved through faith, not of works from ourselves....the Grace of God was the ultimate gift from God!
The hardest thing for me accept......as a Roman Catholic....is that Jesus DID it all, and we cannot add to his COMPLETE and FINISHED work!
The Human Element is quite contrary to the gospel message!
Peace
To explain my comment:
ReplyDeleteIf Abraham did not have the incredible faith that 2 OLD people could have a son........there would have NOT been Issac to SACRIFICE!
In case you believe this was a fore-shadowing of Christ sacrifice on the cross which I am open to......Mt.Moriah/Calvary!
Peace
Celtic, read James 2, from verse one to verse twenty-six. All the way through.
ReplyDeleteNow look at verse 19. "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble."
(It is not enough to simply believe)
Look at verse 20. "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
(You think that those who do works are vain; James says those who believe faith alone will save them are vain)
Look at verse 21. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works."
(You say this example doesn't apply to you, being from the OT; but if it is so irrelevant, why did James use it?)
Look at verse 22. "Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?"
(THIS RIGHT HERE. You point out that Abraham had faith, and rightly so. But James points out that Abraham had works as well, and says that by works is faith PERFECTED. And that, really, is what Catholics believe. Professing belief in God is the first step. A vital step, obviously, but not the only step. James says we need faith AND works, and that is what Catholics believe. We do not ignore James.)
Look at verse 24. "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"
(NOT BY FAITH ONLY! James is specifically and undeniably saying that we are NOT saved by faith alone. You say we that we are saved by faith alone. Who is right: you, Celtic, or the Bible?)
You keep pointing to what Paul said. I already told you that Paul was talking about the works of the Jewish Law, not works in general. I am not talking about the works of the Jewish Law. I am talking about good works in general. You can point to that passage all you want, it does not disprove what I am saying. It does not contradict James. You are taking Paul's words out of context to fit what you want to believe. You are ignoring James.
Jesus' work is finished. Ours is not. You want to ignore the human element, Celtic, but you are human. A body AND a soul, needing works AND faith.
James says that man is not justified by faith alone.
You, Celtic , says that man is justified by faith alone.
Who should I believe? You or the Bible?
Tally
ReplyDeleteYou used the same words the Catholic priest used in his Youtube response to the viral video Why I Hate Religion!----- "Jesus work is Finished
...Ours is not!"
Are you sure you are not the first female member of the Ignasious Loyola "Jesuit " order?
Just the name of your blog says you are a "soldier" fighting a battle---Countereformation--the same as the Jesuits!
Who was Paul speaking to in Romans? Gentiles
The other Apostles were primarily dealing with converting the Jews.
I have to go
Peace
Again, in this New Modern age church age we have gone fro the grace Gospel of Jesus Christ ....to the...Social Gospel, where MAN is at the center!
ReplyDeletePope Paul.VI stated in an encyclical that the church needed to be focused on MAN---wow and it continues with recent Popes. you should know with your study of Pope JPII!
Scripture leads us back to God's message!
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeletePlease accept my apology for my abrasive, synical words to you. You are fighting a battle for your Roman Church by many organizations that hate her!
The one thing that I do not regret, is my exhaustive probing into the truth...this can only be done by scripture. For scripture is the basis of truth!
The reading of scripture is rewarding for the believer, as you well know!
I do not think you have to worry about "Cultural Christians" but"Bible Believing Christians"!
Did you know over 150,000 people die everyday from this earth?
Peace
Paul was speaking to those who fell to the heresy that one must follow Jewish Law to be Christian. Many fell to this heresy, not only Jews. All you need to do is read the rest of the passage to understand this; Paul explicitly and specifically terms them "works of the Law".
ReplyDeleteApology accepted, Celtic. But you did not answer my question.
Who should I believe: James, the Scripture-writer, or you?
Romans 4, was the passage to which I referred.
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteRomans 4 Abraham was imputed with Righteousness for his faith in the OT but Now, we have the righteousness of God through our belief in the Son(Jesus Christ-Romans 3:21-23 NOT By THE LAW !)
By the way believe in James, I am not infallible and the Bible is not errant! If you have Faith --- you will have good WORKS! But .....The same cannot be said that WORKS yield FAITH!
How could a person of faith not yield good works?
It would not make sense....even a bed-ridden person of faith would pray!
Peace
"If you have faith you will have good works...even a bed-ridden person of faith would pray." -Celtic.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct; faith without works is dead, just as James said. We need both, not one or the other.
And as I said, faith is the first step.
Do you believe that "faith is perfected by works"?
Tally
ReplyDeleteLike I've said before, a believer displays works because of his faith.
Why the Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Islamist and many more believe they have to complete Works in accordance to their System!
Some Christians may carry a Bible and go to church but only God knows their true faith!
Above all, Salvation is not a product of a Church...it is from Christ alone.
This is the the core of the Bible message!
Peace
James 2, verse 22:
ReplyDelete"Seest thou, that faith didst cooperate with his works; and by works, faith was made perfect?"
Celtic...do you believe yourself, or the Bible?
Tally, again Abraham was imputed with Righteousnss because of his faith, as scripture has said. Verse 22 states his faith became perfect along with his works.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so shocking about that? In fact, God called him his friend.
Just the fact that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son for his obedience of God shows GREAT faith which he proved with his WORK!
We are not asked to do such work. Christ was the last sacrifice to God!
Again, believers do good works because of their faith and not because they are required!
Peace
Scripture also says that Abraham was justified by his works:
ReplyDelete"Was not Abraham our father justified by works?" (James 2:21)
In one place, Scripture says Abraham was justified by faith; in another, by his works. Unless you are going to ignore part of Scripture, you must accept *both*.
I do not find the statement that faith is perfected by works at all shocking. But you, Celtic, should. If works are merely a sign of faith and nothing more...how can works affect faith? Please answer this question!
And, we are asked to do work. Scripture asks a lot of that. Feed the poor. Clothe the naked. Give the homeless shelter. Love everyone. Pray. Etc. If we don't do this we are grouped on the left with the goats. We do good works because they perfect our faith. We do good works because we have faith, and that faith requires good works.
I agree with your premise,except in matters of Salvation!
ReplyDeleteIt is through the grace of God and all of his power and NOT of anything we could do! Our work is like FILTHY rags compared to the Lords grace!
Jesus is EVERYTHING!!!
It is wonderful and glorius to apply good works with our faith....as long as we remember where the grace is coming from!
Tally
Do you believe you must suffer with Christ?
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeleteNothing to do with the topic but I saw the Franciscan University in Ohio was the first Catholic University to drop health coverage due to Obamas mandate.
I just saw that on the news and remembered that subject in the old forum.
He is one person I bet the Vatican wishes would go away. Maybe a Mormon would be more agreeable!
Peace
"I agree with your premise, except in matters of Salvation." -Celtic
ReplyDelete:Remember what I said about the difference between Redemption and Salvation? The only reason you are having such a problem with accepting James 2 is because you mistakenly lump Redemption and Salvation together; they are NOT the same thing:
Please answer my question: if works are merely a byproduct of faith (as you say) how can they perfect faith?
Please answer my question: if a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (as James tells us in verse 24 of his 2nd chapter) how can a man be saved by faith alone (as you claim)?
Tally
ReplyDeleteEphesians 1: 7-12 We are redeemed through his "precious blood"---the ultimate atonement or remission of our sin. He was the lamb of God who died on Calvary for our sins!
Basically he bought our sins/transgressions for ALL that believe!
How can a person be justified through work alone?--this is not of the spirit of God!
FYI my first communion was at a church called "Holy Redeemer"
We are saved freely by his grace through the redemption of Christ Jesus through faith in his blood!
Truly, it can not be clearer!
Peace
Tally
ReplyDeleteWork is not a byproduct of faith!
Work is added to faith for the believer to show your love for
Christ!
Peace
Tally
ReplyDeleteAnother thing---anyone can understand the defination of redemption or salvation but to be a New Creation in Christ 2Corinthians 5:17 is what is imperative for now for Salvation!
Peace
"We are redeemed through His precious blood." -Celtic.
ReplyDelete:That is exactly what I said; but you equate His Redemption with our Salvation. Why? There are a few problems if you do so. The first is, that if His dying is our salvation, and He died for everyone, then everyone must be saved. Do you believe that *everyone* is saved? I'll assume not; you believe that some people will not be saved. Those who will be saved are those who chose to be. Therefore, Jesus made it *possible* for us to be saved and that was completely His doing; but whether or not we are saved is dependent upon *us*. What must we do, and how exactly it is dependent upon us, is the question. You say it is dependent upon our faith. I say it is dependent upon faith AND work.:
"How can a person be justified through work alone?" -Celtic
:I NEVER said we were. I said we are justified by both faith AND work, in accord with Paul and James. You, Celtic, introduced the word alone--faith alone--in contradiction to James. Again, how does your idea of "faith alone" square with James 2:24: "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" ?:
"Work is added to faith for the believer to show your love for Christ." -Celtic
:Work is added to faith to perfect faith, as James says. Faith is important, and nothing impure or imperfect can enter heaven...including faith. If you need perfect faith to enter heaven, and works perfect faith, then you need works, do you not? Work AND faith.:
2Corinthians15:17, indeed. But don't ignore Jesus in favor of Paul. What about Matthew 25, noting verse 46--that the men who clothed the naked and did other such good works, even though they didn't know they were doing it to Christ Himself, were considered "just" and entered into life everlasting...what about that? And since the entire Bible is infallible, and not only Paul's part, don't ignore James! What about his statement that we aren't saved by faith alone?
Tally
ReplyDeleteLook at 1 John 4:13 this is how you know God loves you
I have heard it said that all men can be saved but over time and disobedience the names are blotted out of the Book Of Life , thus, No Redemption or Salvation! See in Revelations......
Peace
Above all you must believe in the Son to have eternal life....and Iam afraid that leaves out many of the worlds religions...that is tough with any formation of a One World Religion which is edorsed by the RCC!
The only one, universal religion endorsed by the Roman *Catholic* Church is Roman Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think that Catholics do not "believe in the Son"? We believe in Him, His grace, mercy, and the necessity of His Sacrifice. We also believe in the infallibility of His Word. Do you? What about James 2:24, which says we are not saved by faith alone? If you believe that the Bible in the inerrant word of God, why do you ignore and deny this Scriptural passage?
Tally
ReplyDeletePeace
Tally
ReplyDeleteMy whole comment was lost....
I will say that I watched a lecture on Changing The Word....Very Iluminating!
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life
1 John 2:22
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeleteThe prior scripture was NOT for you but others!
Peace
Celtic, we've been discussing religious matters for over a year now, and have never really had a decent conversation outside of such topics. Since it seems your last comment was lost--and so our previous discussion needs be paused for the moment--I think it would be a good time to just...chat.
ReplyDeleteHow are you? How was your mother's day? (I am of the understanding that you do have children)
Tally
ReplyDeleteI wrote you a long note on
Mothers Day
My 2 girls and their education
Facebook and Twitter pros and cons
The strong willed women
But
I lost everything
The Intention was there...I'll try again....not tonite!
Peace
Tally,
ReplyDeleteHow are you doing? First of all, I want to say anytime I critisize the RCC, this is NOT an attack on you. You have made it clear that you are in Christ!
I have been exposed to numerous literature that has helped me with my walk with God......this has made me a defender of Christ!
Everything is by Christ Alone....everything is about Jesus, not anybody or anything else---I won't be too specific for arguments sake!
This weekend both my girls will be home from their schools.
The youngest will be a Junior in the Fall. She is an Art History major and plans to study abroad next semester. My oldest Is starting her Doctorate studies. Smart Girls!!
We have agreed not to talk about Catholcism!
Everybody is on their own!
Just as it should be!
Peace
Doctorate? Wow. She sounds like a very dedicated, intelligent woman! What is she getting her doctorate in?
ReplyDeleteDo you have any grandchildren, or is it still too early for that?
Tally,
ReplyDeleteWay to early!!! Ha
She is working in Psycology..an extreme need for caring, sensitive types like her!
A long time ago, I dropped out of Nursing School and went into Health Research.
Personally, that was the best move I've ever made. I could use all the credits with my transfer in majors! Health Sciences was always my calling!
How about yourself?
What is your area of interest? Have you graduated?
Let me hear from you, and we can start maybe on a new topic!
What do you think about Mary veneration? This subject causes me the most discomfort, next to the papacy.
Peace
I considered a degree in psychology, but it wasn't quite what I was expecting. To much math! And it is difficult to find a find a job in that area, because the supply exceeds the demand... Nope, haven't graduated yet. I will this Sunday. I'm a fantasy author, actually. I write fantasy novels. Recently began screenwriting, too.
ReplyDeleteI have a question; how do you pray? There are many ways to pray--reflection, with Scripture, just talking to God about stuff. How do you, personally, pray?
Mary? I actually see nothing wrong with it. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ; we don't stop being that just because we get to heaven. It's a good thing to pray for our fellow siblings in Christ. When I get to heaven I will still want to help and pray for my friends and family on earth. Mary was no less a Christian than I; I'm sure she wants to help us in heaven just as I do. That's why we ask her to pray for us. Why does this give you discomfort?
Tally
ReplyDeleteCongratulation on your upcoming graduation!
It is always a great accomplishment...great job!
I will talk about Mary later, and how she has been used!
I pray to God in a mix of scripture and thanksgiving(in my own words)!
I do this every night , along with reading scripture---usually Romans...
Peace to you
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteTally
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath? How can a religion use their Authority to change Gods Authority with his Mark of Salvation?
Peace
The Sabbath issue was the most important of Trent. It is amazing how all Reformers caved in to the Papal -Sunday being the Lords Day. Except, I believe the 7th Day Adventist are the only reformers that go by the Bible!
Who gives US Savation?
The Church or God?