reyb Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1742458' date='Jan 4 2009, 12:06 AM']Reyb-When threads are closed it is usually for a reason. Resurrecting an old thread to beat the same dead horse is silly. You have had your fun, and tried to convince a bunch of people who know better that our faith is based on thin air. I'm not buying.[/quote] [indent]Okay.Sorry.[/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 [quote name='reyb' post='1742461' date='Jan 4 2009, 12:08 AM'][indent]cmotherofpril, is there a word 'second coming' in these verses? Okay I will look into it.[/indent][/quote] No the word isn't there, I am sorry for the close spacing. I was pointing out what the verses are referring to - Jesus Coming again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Dear Peep, The 'prove it in the light of the Scriptures' argument is simply a different expression of the 'Scripture Alone' argument. This is nothing new, it is as old as the Church. Those wishing to dissent from Church teaching have used this from the very beginning. 1. The 1st century Docetist Heretics used to when they claimed that Jesus only 'APPEARED' to suffer on the cross, and only 'APPEARED' to have a truly human body. They screamed their, 'Prove he had a body in the light of Scripture nonsense till the cows came home. The Church responded - initially through St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letterws written in 111 A.D. - that the apostles made is very clear that Jesus was both Divine/God and human. That is in His human nature Jesus was really human, that he could get hungry, thirsty, and weary. i.e., Jesus body was no chimera or fantasm - as He demonstrated in the upper room where he ate some fish, and had Thomas put his hand and fingers into the wounds in His own hands and side. 2. The late first and 2nd century Gnostic Heretics claimed (very similarly to Ryeb's arguments in many of their aspects) that they had some special/secret knowledge and insights beyond that of the average person - and knew how to interpret Scripture properly. They claimed that in many cases the literal meaning of Scripture was misleading - and that the Christian Bishops and priests were just clueless/ Well, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, France, was the first one to definitively take them on. He sas a disciple and was ordained by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, who was in turn a disciple of St. John the Apostle - having been catechised, baptized, and ordained by St. John the Apostle. St. Irenaues stated over and over that His teaching is for the most part from Polycarp, who got it from John. [b]And Irenaeus states in his 'Contra Heraeses' [Against Heresies] in the 180's A.D., that the proper understanding of Scripture is no mystery to the Church. Why he says? BECAUSE THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE IS PART OF 'THE ORDER OF TRADITION' HE SAYS.[/b] [b]He makes the point that 'Entire barbarian nations have been converted to Church THROUGHT THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PAPER AND INK."[/b] What does he mean by that? It's quite simple really. In the Roman Empire, a barbarian nation was one which did not have a written language of its own. Ergo, the Romans viewed them as without culture, barbaric, etc. [b]So, what St. Irenaeus is saying here is that entire countries which are made up of illiterate people have been converted to Christ WITHOUT THEM HAVING ACCESS TO THE SCRIPTURES PER SE - BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T READ THEM EVEN IF YOU GAVE THEM TO THEM.[/b] The converted them through the oral announcement of the Gospel message - and then taught them the central elements of Christianity through the use of Creeds - such as the apostle's creed. Also, these people's heard the teaching which is profoundly contained in the language and symbolism of all the Sacrements. Again, Irenaeus makes the same point(s) as Ignatius from 80 years earlier: 1. Rome is the mother Church of the entire Church, 2. When there is a dispute about interpretation of anything - you go to Rome for an answer - as Irenaeus did extensively. The Scripture Alone argument - in all of its varous formats (Ryeb uses one of the oldest most throughouly discredited formats) --- the Scripture Alone argument or any of its varients is historically bankrupt - and clearly involves a false doctrine. That false doctrine is repudiated throughout the length and breadth of the Church. All my love in Christ Desmond [quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1591902' date='Jul 5 2008, 10:21 AM']Nah...I'm Catholic...I don't need to prove it "in the light of Scripture." I think you need to move on to another topic 'cause apparently you haven't proved anything either. Peace[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 5, 2009 Author Share Posted January 5, 2009 (edited) [indent]Thank you for your observation. I am not a Christian as you know it because, God made me to become one, and since you compare me to a Gnostic, it is still a welcome remark, nevertheless I am not a part of it because I do not know them and I am still looking for their writings. Obviously during the time of Marcion and Gnosticism there are members, if not most them, have not yet reached their fulfillment of maturity and birth – meaning to see Jesus Christ himself which must be the goal of Gnosticism and even all of us, hence for them to be attracted and converted to other theology is painless. Ignatius theology is very easy to understand compare to the goal of seeing Christ himself. One must just believe in this historical Jesus and do everything they say and it is done. You are already a Christian leaving behind the Prophets as Christ disciples too with different faith, belief and baptism. And by just claiming Apostle Paul is their preacher they already become true Christians notwithstanding, Apostle Paul said ‘imitate me’ meaning to see Jesus Christ yourself because he saw Him. If by just believing and doing whatever doctrinal offering or whatever traditional belief that the anger of God will be appeased then, Apostle Paul has no reason to cry daily for all us because he is a good preacher. He is crying almost daily in his letters because he knows very well that only thru Christ the anger of God will turn into mercy. That is, you must see Christ yourself because it is almost impossible to accept him unless you see him. How can you accept the One you do not know? Yes, it is written ‘blessed are those who do not see me but believe me’ But the question is, who is he? Who is that Jesus Christ you are talking? Converts are not a proof of a true Church and having the correct discipline. Hypocrite teachers’ looks for converts too and be among their group (see Matthew 23:15). They are hypocrite because they are always saying ‘we are bringing you to God’ but actually they did not guide you to Christ but rather they are bringing you to their understanding about God and His Christ. How can they bring you to Him from where they themselves do not reach that level of maturity and birth? How can they say to you ‘you must see Christ yourself’ from where they themselves did not saw Him? But rather, they will tell you ‘You will never see Christ anymore but just believe and you are more blessed’ thus, as it written, Matt 23:13 [indent][color="#FF0000"]"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[/color][/indent] And we all know who is that door, Jesus Christ himself. Tradition is always a big bet for traditionalist but for a man who saw Jesus Christ tradition is nothing and it is against God himself. Apostle Paul said it many times in his testimony. Do I mean then, to forget your tradition? No I do not mean it but test yourself and used your tradition if you have assurance of salvation. In searching for other writings, I find the canon created by Marcion as one of the many evidences that Jesus is not a historical Jesus. I always said there is no historical Jesus not because of any evidences just like the canon of Marcion but because I found out that Christ is in us. [/indent] Edited January 5, 2009 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Dear All, It is actually quite advantageous to have - up to a very small point - a person such as Ryeb stating that he isn't a Gnostic, but rather is in sympathy with Marcion. You should all know that Marcion died excommunicated from the Christian Church. Here is the intro from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Marcion: Marcionites [b]Heretical sect [i]founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion[/i] and continuing in the West for 300 years,[/b] but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known." Beyond that - here is some of the Doctrine of Marcion - whome Ryeb states he is in sympathy with: "We must distinguish between the doctrine of [b]Marcion himself and that of his followers. Marcion was no Gnostic dreamer.[/b] He wanted a Christianity untrammeled and undefiled by association with Judaism. Christianity was the New Covenant pure and simple. Abstract questions on the origin of evil or on the essence of the Godhead interested him little, but the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old Testament had to be set aside." From the earliest date, [b]the Apostles taught as par of their initial announcment of the Gospel of Christ [the Kerygma]; that JESUS IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISE OF A MESSIAH.[/b] Marcion of course denied all of the above. In fact, Ryeb's views as stated by him - are almost purely Gnostic - in that he claims to be in possession of some kind of higher knowledge than that taught by the Apostles. LOLOL Ryeb does not have a proverbial clue about the substantial similarities or differences between the fullness of the Gnostic Mystics - and those claiming to to be Marcionite Mystics. That is because - as is painfully obvious to anyone who has any scholastic training at all in the counter-Christian movements of the first two centuries - RYEB IS CLUELESS ABOUT THOSE MOVEMENTS. It is obvious that at best - he has read some synopses of same - and then tries to present himself as a scholar of such. Boring. Boooooriiiiing. Pretend wanna-be's are always boring to anyone with any authentic training - no matter what field you might be talking about. Save your meandering and posturing for people without a real education in these things, Ryeb. You aren't fooling anyone.l All my love in Christ Desmond [quote name='reyb' post='1742942' date='Jan 4 2009, 09:18 PM'][indent]Thank you for your observation. I am not a Christian as you know it because, God made me to become one, and since you compare me to a Gnostic, it is still a welcome remark, nevertheless I am not a part of it because I do not know them and I am still looking for their writings. Obviously during the time of Marcion and Gnosticism there are members, if not most them, have not yet reached their fulfillment of maturity and birth – meaning to see Jesus Christ himself which must be the goal of Gnosticism and even all of us, hence for them to be attracted and converted to other theology is painless. Ignatius theology is very easy to understand compare to the goal of seeing Christ himself. One must just believe in this historical Jesus and do everything they say and it is done. You are already a Christian leaving behind the Prophets as Christ disciples too with different faith, belief and baptism. And by just claiming Apostle Paul is their preacher they already become true Christians notwithstanding, Apostle Paul said ‘imitate me’ meaning to see Jesus Christ yourself because he saw Him. If by just believing and doing whatever doctrinal offering or whatever traditional belief that the anger of God will be appeased then, Apostle Paul has no reason to cry daily for all us because he is a good preacher. He is crying almost daily in his letters because he knows very well that only thru Christ the anger of God will turn into mercy. That is, you must see Christ yourself because it is almost impossible to accept him unless you see him. How can you accept the One you do not know? Yes, it is written ‘blessed are those who do not see me but believe me’ But the question is, who is he? Who is that Jesus Christ you are talking? Converts are not a proof of a true Church and having the correct discipline. Hypocrite teachers’ looks for converts too and be among their group (see Matthew 23:15). They are hypocrite because they are always saying ‘we are bringing you to God’ but actually they did not guide you to Christ but rather they are bringing you to their understanding about God and His Christ. How can they bring you to Him from where they themselves do not reach that level of maturity and birth? How can they say to you ‘you must see Christ yourself’ from where they themselves did not saw Him? But rather, they will tell you ‘You will never see Christ anymore but just believe and you are more blessed’ thus, as it written, Matt 23:13 [indent][color="#FF0000"]"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[/color][/indent] And we all know who is that door, Jesus Christ himself. Tradition is always a big bet for traditionalist but for a man who saw Jesus Christ tradition is nothing and it is against God himself. Apostle Paul said it many times in his testimony. Do I mean then, to forget your tradition? No I do not mean it but test yourself and used your tradition if you have assurance of salvation. In searching for other writings, I find the canon created by Marcion as one of the many evidences that Jesus is not a historical Jesus. I always said there is no historical Jesus not because of any evidences just like the canon of Marcion but because I found out that Christ is in us. [/indent][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 [quote name='reyb' post='1742942' date='Jan 4 2009, 09:18 PM']Obviously during the time of Marcion and Gnosticism there are members, if not most them, have not yet reached their fulfillment of maturity and birth – meaning to see Jesus Christ himself which must be the goal of Gnosticism and even all of us, hence for them to be attracted In searching for other writings, I find the canon created by Marcion as one of the many evidences that Jesus is not a historical Jesus. I always said there is no historical Jesus not because of any evidences just like the canon of Marcion but because I found out that Christ is in us. [/indent][/quote] Marcion is the heretic you are appealing to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts