To Paste Or Not To Paste

[ironmonk]

2000 years of history...

It's rare that there is not an anti-Catholic argument that has not been thoroughly answered.

Many anti-Catholics cry foul even when they do the same thing... or worse yet, they write their opinion without any references for the basis of their opinion. They insist that they are right, even when no Christians believed such things until well after 1517 AD. They ignore what the First Christians taught and even contradict the first Christians and insist that they know the truth... very sad.

Then they get to side step the argument that they cannot win... so they cross their arms crying

"you pasted that"...

So what? Rebut it with some real study and try to prove it wrong, or stop wasting our time. Do you love yourself or Truth? Those that love Christ, love the Truth. The Truth is what matters, and the Truth has been handed down 2000 years... anything that contradicts the Truth, is a lie.

The Christian faith is deep... it is not shallow. Go back before 1517 for some answers, if you cannot do that, you've proven yourself wrong.

One Faith, from 33 AD... if not the Catholic Church... then which one?

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

How about pasting short things :D and then provide links. IBecause of my badeyesite I really have a problem with the long stuff. Can you add it to the apologetics board so we can save it for future reference, and just post links from here to there??

[hyperdulia again]

There is a difference between pasting to start a convo and pasting a bunch of irrelevant info during a convo.

[Circle_Master]

2000 years of history...

It's rare that there is not an Catholic argument that has not been thoroughly answered.

Many Catholics cry foul even when they do the same thing... or worse yet, they write their opinion without any references for the basis of their opinion. They insist that they are right, even when no Apostles taught that, or any census ever was agreed by the early Church. They ignore what the Scriptures say and even contradict the first Christians and insist that they know the truth... very sad.

Then they get to side step the argument that they cannot win... so they cross their arms crying

"you pasted that"...

So what? Rebut it with some real study and try to prove it wrong, or stop wasting our time. Do you love yourself or Truth? Those that love Christ, love the Truth. The Truth is what matters, and the Truth has been recorded inerrantly 2000 years... anything that contradicts the Truth, is a lie.

The Christian faith is deep... it is not shallow. Go back to 100 A.D. in Scripture for some answers, if you cannot do that, you've proven yourself wrong.

One Faith, from 33 AD... if not the church Christ is leading... then which one?

Your Servant in Christ,

circle_master

(I hope you get my point.)

[cmotherofpirl]

Its not irrelevant its overwhelming

[hyperdulia again]

i guess i wouldn't really know whether or not long pastes a relevant, i rarely reead them unless they are the first post on a thread. they injure dialogue and for me at least learning comes from dialogue.

[Circle_Master]

it really isn't relevant. I changed like 3 phrases in his entire thing and it applies 100% to Catholic Church's now.

[cmotherofpirl]

it really isn't relevant. I changed like 3 phrases in his entire thing and it applies 100% to Catholic Church's now.

Except now the facts are wrong.

[Bruce S]

So what? Rebut it with some real study and try to prove it wrong, or stop wasting our time. Do you love yourself or Truth? Those that love Christ, love the Truth. The Truth is what matters, and the Truth has been handed down 2000 years... anything that contradicts the Truth, is a lie.

Of course....

"TRUTH" is what YOU say it is, always. Isn't it?

The Catholic Church defines what "truth" is, and that is it.

Lockstep, non-thinking dogmatism. That is why you are not thought highly of outside the box that is constraining independent thought.

Truth is NOT what the Vatican puts out, that is OPINION, nothing more, nothing less.

Edited January 2, 2004 by Bruce S

[ironmonk]

Jesus was a fact. The One Faith He started on Peter was a fact. It is a fact that the same One Faith will never be overcome.

Truth is based in Fact.

The Truth that Christ taught His Apostles, and guides His One Faith in is fact. It's not a philosophical arguement.... it's all based in Fact.

God does not change. If anything contradicts the One Faith that came from 33 AD, then it is simply wrong. We know that the One Faith will develop as needed because Christ said so. Christ told us that the Advocate would guide the One Faith in all Truth.

In Acts 15:6-31, we read of the first General Church Council. A serious question of doctrine arose, and "the apostles and the presbyters came together to consider this matter" (Acts 15:6). After hearing the arguments and testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, the leader of the Council, James, then passed a decree with the words, "Therefore I judge" (Acts 15:19, 'dio ego krino'). This passage describes no truly democratic process, but rather it describes submission to the judgment of a central ecclesiastical authority.

After receiving the judgment of James, "it pleased the apostles and presbyters together with the whole Church" (Acts 15:22: 'apostolois kai tois presbyterois syn hole ekklesia') to dispatch delegates with a letter promulgating the decree of the Council. The council then drafted a letter in the name of "the apostles and the brother-presbyters" (Acts 15:23: 'hoi apostoloi kai hoi presbyteroi adelphoi'). This phrasing, and especially the apposition of 'presbyteroi' and 'adelphoi', is quite precise in establishing the authority of the decision of the Council in the office of the ministers who serve and lead the Church, as opposed to a democratic process.

Does the phrase "whole Church" here refer to the universal Church, or merely to the entirety of the congregation at Jerusalem. Recalling that the leadership of the Council was comprised of the apostles who were planting local churches in the Hellenistic world, delegates of the Hellenistic churches, and the presbyters of the church at Jerusalem, we can only rightly conclude that they spoke in the name of the universal Church. Indeed, the letter explicitly states that the authors speak in the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28); since Paul tells us that it is by one Spirit that we were baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) which is Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) and over which Christ is the head (1 Eph. 1:22-23), when Luke writes in Acts 15:22 of the leadership of the whole Church assenting to the decree of James which is binding on all Gentile Christians, he is necessarily speaking of the Church in its universal or catholic sense.

The Council then sent the letter to the local churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. This letter remarks that the false doctrine which the council repudiated was in fact discernibly false because "we gave no such commandments" (Acts 15:24). Hence, the Bible tells us that right doctrine is subject to the discernment of the leadership of the whole Church.

The decree of the Council of Jerusalem went on, then, to establish a binding obligation upon all Christians in the local churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: "that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). Did the local churches bristle at this imposition of doctrine and practice from the ecclesiastical leadership of the whole Church? Not at all, but rather they "rejoiced over its encouragement" (Acts 15:31).

We clearly see that the Bible itself sets a precedent for the government of the universal Church by means of General Councils.

These Councils are guided by Christ in all Truth. Just as Christ promised in St. John 14:16-18

So for us to know what the truth is in a sea of 34,000 or even if there were only 2 denominiations, we must start in the first century to see which holds the complete truth.

We know that any denomination that uses the bible has some of the Truth, but to have the complete truth is where we all need to be. The One Faith established by Christ.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Bruce S]

Jesus was a fact. The One Faith He started on Peter was a fact. It is a fact that the same One Faith will never be overcome.

You know the arguments on Peter as well as I do.

The TRUTH is the entire paragraph BEFORE AND AFTER the Peter snippet lifted out of context.

The ROCK, was the admission that Peter stated Christ was the Messiah, come to save the world, and the FAITH in Jesus was the foundation stone.

This one is debated to death, I'm going with the Protestant spin on it, it makes more sense that a FAITH would be founded on Jesus, than a flawed man, and moreso, those TERRIBLE excuses of men that inhabited the Papacy in the middle ages. God would NEVER EVER want a system where such obvious frauds ascended to the role of "Vicar" representing him. Sorry.

On that basis alone, the Papacy fails the scratch and sniff test.

[ironmonk]

You know the arguments on Peter as well as I do.

The TRUTH is the entire paragraph BEFORE AND AFTER the Peter snippet lifted out of context.

The ROCK, was the admission that Peter stated Christ was the Messiah, come to save the world, and the FAITH in Jesus was the foundation stone.

This one is debated to death, I'm going with the Protestant spin on it, it makes more sense that a FAITH would be founded on Jesus, than a flawed man, and moreso, those TERRIBLE excuses of men that inhabited the Papacy in the middle ages. God would NEVER EVER want a system where such obvious frauds ascended to the role of "Vicar" representing him. Sorry.

On that basis alone, the Papacy fails the scratch and sniff test.

Are you infallible?

How do you know what the context is?

The First Christians for hundreds of years disagree with you. Even the ones taught by the Apostles.

-ironmonk

Edited January 2, 2004 by ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

How do you know what the context is?

It's called reading.

[jasJis]

The ROCK, was the admission that Peter stated Christ was the Messiah, come to save the world, and the FAITH in Jesus was the foundation stone.

This one is debated to death, I'm going with the Protestant spin on it, it makes more sense that a FAITH would be founded on Jesus, than a flawed man, and moreso, those TERRIBLE excuses of men that inhabited the Papacy in the middle ages. God would NEVER EVER want a system where such obvious frauds ascended to the role of "Vicar" representing him. Sorry.

On that basis alone, the Papacy fails the scratch and sniff test.

Circles,

Please. Don't just accept the 'Protestant spin'. It's Scriptural that God makes straight with crooked lines. It's Scriptural that God uses the Cornerstone that human builders had rejected. It's Scriptural that God repeatedly used fallible and inperfect people.

Using you standard, you'd have to write the whole thing off right after Adam and Eve. With a little patience, you might last till Cain and Able. But we should all quit right after Moses busted the tablets.

[cmotherofpirl]

Of course....

"TRUTH" is what YOU say it is, always. Isn't it?

The Catholic Church defines what "truth" is, and that is it.

Lockstep, non-thinking dogmatism. That is why you are not thought highly of outside the box that is constraining independent thought.

Truth is NOT what the Vatican puts out, that is OPINION, nothing more, nothing less.

TRUTH is What God says.

A fact is a true statement of reality, not what you wish it would be. Opinion is how you feel about those facts. Fastasy is a fact as you wish it would be.

God is Truth and the only Reality. He sent his son Jesus, who died for our sins. Jesus left a visible Church with somebody in charge until he gets back. Church documents stretch from then until now proclaiming the same basic Truths Jesus taught to the Apostles. Some of this is in the Bible, some of it in the Traditional teachings handed down for 2000 years, but all of it is contained in the Church.

Someone could hand you a book and say this is how to be a christian without reference to the Church, but that is like handing someone a medical dictionary and say be a docter without any practice or guidance. THe book is a start, but long years of practice make a docter. THe Church is 2000 years of having the book and and practical experience of living and recieving Christ.

Those are facts, that is reality.

History doesn't change cause you don't like it. THere are about 37 volumes of Church Fathers who proclaim the Church teachings left by Jesus and the Apostles. We proclaim what the Fathers proclaim. We understand it better now than they did. We have had 2000 years to think about it. Catholics do a lot of thinking, if you don't believe read me Aquinas, or any Docter of the Church, or if you prefer Newmann, Chesterton etc. We think logic is a basic tool of theology, and God is a God of order. There are thousands of pages written by Docters of the Church and great Saints of how to live in Christ. To say we don't think is silly and back in fantasy land.

So, you don't have to like Reality, agree with it, and can choose to waste your life protesting it, or go thru life hoping it simply isn't true. But the facts won't change.

Get over it.

Jesus said "you are for me or you are against me". You choose Him and His Church, or fantasy.

Its not multiple choice or a cafeteria where you pick this belief and not that. THat would be holding on to bits and pieces of fastasy instead of the Cross. You cannot serve two masters.

God doesn't say you have to like the cross He offers, but He does say its the only road to Him. You step out of fantasy life as you want it to be into the the Reality of His eternal gaze. To step outside Jesus' box is to choose fantasy. Fantasy is easier, and most people choose it. But there is no such thing as independance from God. Your minute by minute existance depends utterly on Him.

You can pretend this like is all there is and go blissfully( or not) thru your day to day existance. However, there is a penalty. You will have to make a choice in the end. It is deceptively simple: my own will, or THY will.

(This is not to say you won't stumble and fall, but repentance, absolution and the eternal banquet are waiting for your return when you do.)

Life is not a rehearsal, there are no second chances. THere is a test at the end.

Grace is free, but it is never cheap. There is a price for accepting reality of what God offers- your life as you know it will end.

But the price for denying it is a hell of a lot higher.

[willguy]

Not to sidetrack matters any, but I have to

The ROCK, was the admission that Peter stated Christ was the Messiah, come to save the world, and the FAITH in Jesus was the foundation stone.

That is the weakest protestant arguement out there. Jesus, if you completely translate what He said, said "You are Rock, and upon this Rock I build my Church." He said YOU are Rock, not what you say is the rock, but You. As in Simon Peter (Kephas).

But one thing I've found is that a Catholic mentality is "I will make myself agree with the truth" and Protestant mentality is more along the lines of "I will make the truth agree with me" (case in point: choosing a denomination because you like what it says instead of because it stands the test of time and bears the witness of Scripture, History, and Tradition).

[Circle_Master]

But one thing I've found is that a Catholic mentality is "I will make myself agree with the truth" and Protestant mentality is more along the lines of "I will make the truth agree with me" (case in point: choosing a denomination because you like what it says instead of because it stands the test of time and bears the witness of Scripture, History, and Tradition).

Do not suggest such a thing. I come at Scripture only to see what it may teach. I study passages and do historical research and do cultural research and study commentators and find the best explanation possible for a passage. If it disagree's with my theology - I will adjust my theology. I do not have a 'Church' that tells me the boundaries of my interpretation or tells me specifically what I must believe and then fit Scripture in that.

Who is really making Scripture fit to their case and who is really attempting to find out what it says. Why do you think dispensationalism even sprung up? It was an attempt to figure out how to hold to literal promises made in the Old Testament letting Scripture speak for itself. Why do you think ANY protestant denomination sprung up? It was for letting Scripture speak for itself and searching for the true meanings - not ones dictated.

[cmotherofpirl]

Now don't go into attack mode again , but does this mean that if you keep finding new meanings for a passages you will keep adjusting your theology? Are you ever worried that you will change to the point that you are in a different Church theologically than where you started out?

And as for making scripture meeting theology and viseversa , how do you reconcile the prot position on John 6, which is the opposite of 1500 years of teaching of the Church.

[Circle_Master]

Now don't go into attack mode again , but does this mean that if you keep finding new meanings for a passages you will keep adjusting your theology? Are you ever worried that you will change to the point that you are in a different Church theologically than where you started out?

It does not bother me. What is the salvation message is the most simplest thing and I have no doubt will never change. That is what is important in finding a church to belong to first. If my theology is thoroughly against theirs in all other ways it does not matter. I will teach it as I see the truth, and I will attempt to show it to the elders and etc. but the people are still Christians and I will worship with them my creator.

And as for making scripture meeting theology and viseversa , how do you reconcile the prot position on John 6, which is the opposite of 1500 years of teaching of the Church.

I take great comfort in knowing many extremely intelligent men have concluded the position I take on John 6. My own studies result in seeing the eucharist as a symbol of the wondrous act of Christ humbling himself to death. If I take it believing it is only a symbol and in actuallity it really is transubstantiation or consubstantiation does it hurt me? No, I will still be partaking - but either way I glorify God and worship Him in the act.

I just scanned over John 6 again to make sure I knew what you were talking about and I can't help but pick out these two verses.

"28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." "

It is so simple, and yet so beautiful. Believe in Him. Call on His name. Trust in Him. And all is well.