Some confusion in regards to apostles

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Mar 28 2005, 01:22 PM'] I apologize, I was just very frusterated and angry at the time of the post. [/quote]
How about condeming all confusion and misunderstanding to hell?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 29 2005, 11:46 AM'] Hi CAM and Paphnatius,

How can a "condemned theologian" still be a priest in good standing?

But I agree. We certainly can't have these "Modernist" theologians running around questioning the party line. Do you know that some of them even go so far to say that Matthew was wrong about Jesus riding two animals when entering Jerusalem, and Matthew's and Luke's nativity narratives aren't completely historical?

Shame! Shame! Hang in there tried and true!

LittleLes [/quote]
I never said that Fr. McBrien is condemned. I said that Kung is. I also said that Schillebeeckx is.

Stop putting words in my mouth. McBrien agrees with them.

Although, I would still say that there is a great dubium put upon his work. I gave example to that.

You just need to let those old arguments die. Resurrecting them on another thread doesn't make them valid again. They are not.

Gimme a break....you really are a twisty noodle.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM,

But these old arguments have not been answered. Just denied.

That's a different matter of course.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

blah, blah, blah.....we've answered them. It is you who don't accept the answer. That is perfidious darkness.

I am sorry if your personal belief system doesn't jive with that. By the way, where is the authority of your belief system rooted?

Cam

[InCircles]

"Because they apostles did establish a Church."

Just wanted to make it clear that Jesus established His church, we must not forget that. This is what makes us different from other religions, Jesus founded our Church.

Love the Immaculata

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM,

No. Most questions remain unanswred. Of course "true believers" have to pretend that they have been. That's the party line, isn't it. The fundamental question about the claimed divine inspiration of the bible has not been answered, perhaps other than, in effect, "you just have to believe."

Things like the chronological impossibility in Lukes's nativity narrative in which Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 B.C.) and when Quirinius was governor of Syria (became governor in 6 A.D.) have never been explained except by the unproven assertion that Quirinius had really "been governor earlier too." So Luke's nativity narrative (like Matthew's which is quite different) can be shown to be fictional.

And Hi In Circles,

You might want to read the thread "Did Jesus found a Church" especially the beginning in which I demonstrate that it is extremely improbable that Jesus did, for the reasons given. But, of course, the "true believers" can't accept the facts no matter how overwhelming the evidence. "You just have to believe."

Actually, Paul really founded the Catholic church as it exists today. The sect to which Jesus' original disciples belonged was destroyed in the late first century.

LittleLes

Edited March 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]No. Most questions remain unanswred. Of course "true believers" have to pretend that they have been. That's the party line, isn't it.  The fundamental question about the claimed divine inspiration of the bible has not been answered, perhaps other than, in effect, "you just have to believe."[/quote]

Answered. You just don't accept it.

[quote]Things like the chronological impossibility in Lukes's nativity narrative in which Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 B.C.) and when Quirinius was governor of Syria (became governor in 6 A.D.) have never been explained except by the unproven assertion that Quirinius had really "been governor earlier too." So Luke's nativity narrative (like Matthew's which is quite different) can be shown to be fictional.[/quote]

Whatever....you are incorrect. What are your sources and are they provable. What do B.C. and A.D. stand for again? You are denying inspiration.

[quote]You might want to read the thread "Did Jesus found a Church" especially the beginning in which I demonstrate that it is extremely improbable that Jesus did, for the reasons given. But, of course, the "true believers" can't accept the facts no matter how overwhelming the evidence. "You just have to believe."[/quote]

What authortitative documentation did you use to refute the proofs from the Catholic perspective? Are your opinions enough? I don't think so. You don't want people to go back and read, it will show you to be as big a farce as you have become.

Cam

Edited March 30, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM.

As I recall, I used the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles to point out the preponderance of the evidence that Jesus did not found a Church.

That short term memory problem again.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

And I recall that we refuted your position. With the same books. Stop the charade.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM,

Then you recall incorrectly. But I realize that you have to say you did.

As I recall (and I don't think I'm suffering from short term memory loss) all you presented were a collection of the use of the word "church" in writings of the second half of the first century. But you never disproved that the early Christian community in the beginning was a "sect" within Judaism maintaining Jewish beliefs and practices, as Acts describes it. The first disciples of Jesus did not attempt to found a separate religion.

But then Matthew hadn't been written yet, so they probably didn't know they were suppose to.

LittleLes

Edited March 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 06:47 AM'] No. Most questions remain unanswred. Of course "true believers" have to pretend that they have been. That's the party line, isn't it. The fundamental question about the claimed divine inspiration of the bible has not been answered, perhaps other than, in effect, "you just have to believe." [/quote]
Would you please quit referring to it as a part line. It is not a party line but an article of faith that they are inspired. If you are looking for evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures I refer you to the thread Melchisadec by Micahelfilo. I think you will be disapointed about our view on things.

You never responded to my comment about those two going against articles of faith mentioned in the creed. Could that be because they do not fall into your favortie "party line" defense? What exactly is your definition of party line? I ask you to make a statement of faith on this board so I can rest assured that you are not confusing what the Church holds essential to the faith and what may be party lines...

Do you believe in the ressurection?
Transubstantiation?
Virginal Birth?

If you are a Catholic those should be easy for you. You only have to answer yes to one of them to show that you know the difference between a party line and an essential of faith.

[Paphnutius]

This should clear some things up about your party line defense.

From merriam webster

[quote]Main Entry: creed
Pronunciation: 'krEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti
1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle
- creed·al or cre·dal  /'krE-d&l/ adjective [/quote]

[quote]The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
  the Father, the Almighty,
  maker of heaven and earth,
  of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
  [b]the only Son of God[/b],
  eternally begotten of the Father,
  God from God, Light from Light,
  true God from true God,
  begotten, not made,
  of one Being with the Father.
  Through him all things were made.
  For us and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven:
  by the power of the Holy Spirit
    [b]he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
    and was made man.[/b] 
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
    he suffered death and was buried.
    [b]On the third day he rose again[/b]    
in accordance with the Scriptures;
    he ascended into heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
    and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
  who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
  With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
  [b]He has spoken through the Prophets.
  We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
  We look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the world to come.  Amen.[/b][/quote]

Just incase if you want to dispute that one:

[quote]believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. 

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; [b]who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,[/b] suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; [b]the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven,[/b] and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 

I[b] believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church;[/b] the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.[/quote]


Emphasis added on the creeds.

So as you can see Littleles, they are not party lines. They are one can say the unnegotiables. So drop the party line carp if you are Catholic. If you aren't Catholic then stop trying to present yourself as such to gain an edge.

Edited March 30, 2005 by Paphnutius

[LittleLes]

Hi Paphnutius,

But at least you are concurring that you cannot question anything in you belief system, aren't you

But some of us can. Especially when error is detected.

LittleLes

Edited March 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[Paphnutius]

I can look into see why we think it is a matter of faith, but just as that. Not a party line. As for the things in the creed, I do not believe that they may be questiond for I truly have faith in them. Other things outside of the creeds I feel like I may question on a more solid stance, but not the creedal statements.

Quit dodging the bullet and answer my question about your faith.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 10:46 AM'] But some of us can. Especially when error is detected. [/quote]
I am glad that you feel you have some gnostic knowledge that the Church has been missing for nearly 2000 years.