Is This Even English?

[Circle_Master]

If we are one faith, one Lord, one baptism, why is it calling right after that passage for unity. There was only one church at that time! Maybe because there is one faith, one Lord, and one baptism, but it doesn't mean one physical instuted church. There must be another understanding of the passage.

I like that bruce, going back to 'the way'.

Just like when Paul commended the Berean's on them testing what He said in the Scriptures (even though they weren't appointed by an apostle and had no idea how to interpret Scripture!) and also Apollos who was used because he was "mighty in Scripture" who also had no idea how to interpret the bible!

Edited January 1, 2004 by Circle_Master

[willguy]

Okay, I'm 17, public schooled my whole life, and the stuff you've posted makes perfect sense to me.

bet you Catholics don't even know what is in that book. No human alive could wade through this and come out with a clear understanding on what the Catholic Church wants people to believe.

Just an FYI, tems like "you Catholics" or "what the Catholic Church wants people to believe" tend to piss Catholics, like me, off. Meaning, if you aren't here trolling, you may want to not use them because they get easily misinterpretted.

Guess what? We don't even have ANY cannon law, in fact, my denomination ONLY requires you believe in 16 key points.

And you can learn them all in about 10 minutes, and Catholics would agree to most of them instantly.

How do you maintain order without a law? How do you manage to take the entire Bible and make just 16 key points? Can you read the Bible in 10 minutes? No. Then you can't uderstand what it means to be Christian in 10 minutes. Also, Catholics would agree with the 16 key points, why don't you become Catholic?

Mad props to jmjtina and dust for their posts.

[the_rev]

Hence the reason I'm Catholic. If I honestly thought that the teachings of Christ could be condensed into 16 points, and taught in 10 minutes, I too would be part of whatever denomination would best suite my lifestyle.

As a faithful Catholic, my journey to know Christ better will continue until the day I die.

I read through this whole topic, and I found two posts, that I really red, and thought about, for a few minutes, Litlle Flower, Great stuff, and I quoted Dust, because I truly believe what he said. I just don't want to learn about my faith in 10 minutes, we believe this, and we believe that. I want to be able to study for years and years and years, on end, learning more about God, and the church he has set forth. Learning about your beliefs in 10 minutes would be unrealalistic. How can you understand your beliefs, and what you believe in that little time. So, for years and years, I plan to study my faith, as I strive to become a priest, and proclaim what God has taught me, and continue to learn from Jesus the teacher.

This was probably senslessbabble but that's ok! I wanted to repost what DuST said because that was my thoughts when I first opened this thread on my screen!!!

[Paladin D]

I read through this whole topic, and I found two posts, that I really red, and thought about, for a few minutes, Litlle Flower, Great stuff, and I quoted Dust, because I truly believe what he said. I just don't want to learn about my faith in 10 minutes, we believe this, and we believe that. I want to be able to study for years and years and years, on end, learning more about God, and the church he has set forth. Learning about your beliefs in 10 minutes would be unrealalistic. How can you understand your beliefs, and what you believe in that little time. So, for years and years, I plan to study my faith, as I strive to become a priest, and proclaim what God has taught me, and continue to learn from Jesus the teacher.

This was probably senslessbabble but that's ok! I wanted to repost what DuST said because that was my thoughts when I first opened this thread on my screen!!!

Same here man, same here. If we learned our faith in 10 minutes, wouldn't our faith be boring?

[willguy]

I agree with Pal --^

There was only one church at that time!

Yes, and there continued to be only one church (not ocunting the herecies) until the Great Schism around 1054 (I'm working from memory, but I think that's the date). Then there were two, but they had almost identical beliefs just under different heads. Then you have Luther and the Reformers (I hate using that word, it makes the event sound so positive) in th 1500's come along and now there are I don't even know how many. Just the other day I heard of a Protestant Church in which the members take communion once, the day that they "enter the church". There is an infinite amount of confusion in Protestantism.

[CICCIO]

its not that hard to understand it. you jsut hae to take time. sometimes, like poetry, you have to read it more than once to get the meaning. its only because it uses uncommon lanuage. and if you take the time to desipher each of the paragraphs one at a time, you can see its not quite double speak. (i asume you mean that jokingly, but i can see how enitially it would look like doublespeak)

[Circle_Master]

I read through this whole topic, and I found two posts, that I really red, and thought about, for a few minutes, Litlle Flower, Great stuff, and I quoted Dust, because I truly believe what he said. I just don't want to learn about my faith in 10 minutes, we believe this, and we believe that. I want to be able to study for years and years and years, on end, learning more about God, and the church he has set forth. Learning about your beliefs in 10 minutes would be unrealalistic. How can you understand your beliefs, and what you believe in that little time. So, for years and years, I plan to study my faith, as I strive to become a priest, and proclaim what God has taught me, and continue to learn from Jesus the teacher.

I'm thinking you missed something. The protestant gospel is simple - theology is not. I would actually think protestant theology has much more to learn than that Catholic one merely because there are no limits to the possibilities. And since you have thousands of well educated protestants with Th.M's and Ph.D's and such you are seeing an evolution currently of theology - I am anxious to see where it will be in years. It is constantly growing and changing as men are grown up to let Scripture speak for itself. It used to be hardcore dispensationalism - now it is progressive dispensationalism. Epangelical theology is also out there now and they are all trying to figure out how the entire Bible works together.

[jasJis]

I'm thinking you missed something. The protestant gospel is simple - theology is not. I would actually think protestant theology has much more to learn than that Catholic one merely because there are no limits to the possibilities. And since you have thousands of well educated protestants with Th.M's and Ph.D's and such you are seeing an evolution currently of theology - I am anxious to see where it will be in years. It is constantly growing and changing as men are grown up to let Scripture speak for itself. It used to be hardcore dispensationalism - now it is progressive dispensationalism. Epangelical theology is also out there now and they are all trying to figure out how the entire Bible works together.

You're kidding us, right?

And you have what problem with "Catholic" theology that has developed for 2,000 years?

Epangelical theology is also out there now and they are all trying to figure out how the entire Bible works together.

Give them a hint. The Old Testament prophisises and foretells the New Testament. The New Testatment fulfills the Old Testament.

[Circle_Master]

Give them a hint. The Old Testament prophisises and foretells the New Testament. The New Testatment fulfills the Old Testament.

you really have no idea what you are talking about jasjis

anyway....

why have you been so rude lately? are you sick or something? bad day?

[jasJis]

you really have no idea what you are talking about jasjis

Oh yeah. My bad. I'm an idiot.

CCC 140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfils the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

anyway....

why have you been so rude lately?  are you sick or something?  bad day?

I'm battlling hatefilled Lies that seek to hide Truth and Grace from innocents who are young in Grace and don't know. War is rarely polite. -_-

I think I've been doing pretty well, though. In the spirit of kindness and gentleness, I don't say A LOT of stuff I have the desire to say, nor in the manner I think would be more clear.

[cmotherofpirl]

I think Jas does have a point. Prots complain we have changed the teachings of Christ's original church then you tell us about your progessive theology.

It does sound totally contradictory.

[Circle_Master]

this is a very complex theological matter.

you said that the Church has replaced Israel in another thread. Here are some problems which must be dealt with then

1) God never made a formal covenant with the church

2) The failure of the Jews, like the failure of the Gentiles, was included and calculated in the plan of God (Rom. 11:8)

3) Even now there is a faithful remnant of Jewish believers who are part of Israel and part of the church (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:16)

4) The New Testament clearly teaches that God has not cast off disobedient Israel (Rom. 11:1, 25-26)

5) The church is never called the "new Israel" of God in the Bible

6) The claim that the promises about the land were fulfilled long ago, thus making the present state of Israel irrelevant to the plan of God, is unsupported by Scripture. Zechariah 10, for exmaple, written after the return from Babylonian exile, is still looking forward to the regathering of Jews from the four corners of the earth.

These are some of the things which are attempting to be explained by the growth of theology, to figure out how everything works together. JasJis - you said the NT fulfills the OT. Well, some of it. The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant as it was fulfilled by Christ, but there are problems as to the role of the Church - what to do with Israel, etc.

[Winchester]

Brucey,

Your quote is in English. The original document was probably in Latin.

What do I win? What do I win?

[jasJis]

this is a very complex theological matter.

you said that the Church has replaced Israel in another thread. Here are some problems which must be dealt with then

1) God never made a formal covenant with the church

2) The failure of the Jews, like the failure of the Gentiles, was included and calculated in the plan of God (Rom. 11:8)

3) Even now there is a faithful remnant of Jewish believers who are part of Israel and part of the church (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:16)

4) The New Testament clearly teaches that God has not cast off disobedient Israel (Rom. 11:1, 25-26)

5) The church is never called the "new Israel" of God in the Bible

6) The claim that the promises about the land were fulfilled long ago, thus making the present state of Israel irrelevant to the plan of God, is unsupported by Scripture. Zechariah 10, for exmaple, written after the return from Babylonian exile, is still looking forward to the regathering of Jews from the four corners of the earth.

These are some of the things which are attempting to be explained by the growth of theology, to figure out how everything works together. JasJis - you said the NT fulfills the OT. Well, some of it. The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant as it was fulfilled by Christ, but there are problems as to the role of the Church - what to do with Israel, etc.

Anyone can eat an elephant. We just have to remember we only can do it one bite at a time. Complexity is not a problem. Instead of gnawing all over the outside of the elepahnt, let's stay in one place and get chomping down to the bone.

Start with your point one.

1.) God never made a formal covenant with the church.

Let's examine the validity of that. Who or what is the church you speak of and who you think we speak of so we can then both examine Scripture (and Cath's can use Tradition to guide in Scripture) to find where God did or didnot make a comenant with the "church".

We'll leave the other points alone until we got this one chewed and swallowed.

[Bruce S]

this is a very complex theological matter.

you said that the Church has replaced Israel in another thread. Here are some problems which must be dealt with then

1) God never made a formal covenant with the church

Last night, on EWTN, Scott Hahn, Catholic apologist was being interviewed on this very subject.

He went into what a Covenent is, was, and how it is structured. Who does what, and what are the obligations contained therein.

As things developed, he extended the original Covent God made with Noah, then Abraham, later Jacob, and Moses, the tribes of Israel...

Then made the astonishing statement that this Covenent with God was now extended to the CATHOLIC church too, and "in THE church" implying strongly that meant those within the Catholic Church.

Amazing.

He did NOT say, all Christians, but the Catholic church.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Bruce S

[PedroX]

Why is this amazing? I would say that Catholic docrine is pretty clear on it.

peace...

[jasJis]

Last night, on EWTN, Scott Hahn, Catholic apologist was being interviewed on this very subject.

He went into what a Covenent is, was, and how it is structured. Who does what, and what are the obligations contained therein.

As things developed, he extended the original Covent God made with Noah, then Abraham, later Jacob, and Moses, the tribes of Israel...

Then made the astonishing statement that this Covenent with God was now extended to the CATHOLIC church too, and "all believers" implying strongly that meant those within the Catholic Church.

Amazing.

He did NOT say, all Christians, but the Catholic church.

*edit* :batman:

Is Scott a Bishop or Pope?

We are to take BruceS word for what Scott said? How about quoting from one of Scotts writings to present what Scott REALLY says about what the Church is.

How about using Circle's outline to reasonably and logically address the points he brought up? You can do it to help the dummy Cath's AND show a sign of Protestant solidarity.

[cmotherofpirl]

Last night, on EWTN, Scott Hahn, Catholic apologist was being interviewed on this very subject.

He went into what a Covenent is, was, and how it is structured. Who does what, and what are the obligations contained therein.

As things developed, he extended the original Covent God made with Noah, then Abraham, later Jacob, and Moses, the tribes of Israel...

Then made the astonishing statement that this Covenent with God was now extended to the CATHOLIC church too, and "in THE church" implying strongly that meant those within the Catholic Church.

Amazing.

He did NOT say, all Christians, but the Catholic church.

well, yeah.

There was, and is, only ONE Church.

[Bruce S]

There was, and is, only ONE Church.

And what are Protestants then, semi-offical Catholics.

Or...

Are we, as we contend, ALL members of the Christian [small c] catholic [universal church] in good standing with God?

[cmotherofpirl]

And what are Protestants then, semi-offical Catholics.

Or...

Are we, as we contend, ALL members of the Christian [small c] catholic [universal church] in good standing with God?

people who are imperfectly joined to Jesus thru the Church he left behind.

There is only one faith, one baptism, and one Church, one mediator.

Edited January 8, 2004 by cmotherofpirl