Trusting Holy Scriptures Over The Church

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I disagree Dairy, that the CCC says that those not formerly Catholic are not Christian. Is that what you meant or am i reading you wrong?[/quote]

someone said every christian before the reformation was catholic. i said nope. i'm not saying the CCC teaches noncatholics aren't christian.

[thessalonian]

[quote]If you read the Bible, you will find out that there is a passage where a person in a crowd around Jesus says “blessed is the womb that bore you” but Jesus says, but rather, blessed is he who hears the word of God and keeps it.”[/quote]

So mary wasn't blessed? Cz, then Elizabeth was a liar when she spoke by the Holy Spirit "blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb". That's sarcasm in case you think I am denying the passage. No, I think Jesus was correcting the reason why people (Mary included) are blessed. Mary did the will of God. She heard his word and kept it.

[N/A Gone]

Ok, I read it. I have a couple minor questions (I dont want to hijack the thread)

You said you wanted to study theology, but why did you go to Gordon?

Also, you cite the "elect" meaning those choosen by God. This is a rather new understanding of term only used in the Calvinist arena. There are parts where God "chooses" someone for mission, but the salvation of a person is not what Paul is speaking of. In the Pauline letters the "elect" means the jewish people. In the letter of Romans, which historically and still today by many is considered a letter that was intended to bring peace to the jewish and gentile christians in rome. It is not a letter about the ones choosen for salvation and the ones not as the calvinist interpretation is.

I do not enjoy talking about my background, but my resume is good enough to teach at your school. If you want to talk about a specific verse than go ahead and ask and we can discuss. Exegesis is a beautiful thing but you must remember that your own ability is just a product of what you have been taught. A lens you were given. Doing exegesis with the lens of the historic christian metaphysic is true exegesis.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1389234' date='Sep 20 2007, 04:03 PM']So mary wasn't blessed? Cz, [b]then Elizabeth was a liar [/b]when she spoke by the Holy Spirit "blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb". That's sarcasm in case you think I am denying the passage. No, I think Jesus was correcting the reason why people (Mary included) are blessed. Mary did the will of God. She heard his word and kept it.[/quote]

there is a passage that says what Chris says. But the context is simple. Mary is important, but in the fact that she moves us to Christ. The passion is understood as seeing Christ in Mary's eyes. The Rosary is the same way.

Now, it was not just Elizabeth. It was an angel also

[quote]Luke Ch 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.[/quote]

[ckozlowski]

[quote]Scripture does not command to trust the bible over the church.[/quote]

you're correct, mateo might have been a little biased in the way he created this topic

is there anything else you wanted to mention? sorry i'm really busy i should be writing an essay for tomorrow.

if you just mention it below i can get back to you later rev

and thanks for sticking up for me.

[N/A Gone]

yea, I had a few points. Go back and just read my posts on this thread. Here are the direct links to all my posts.

What is your essay on? I could do proto theology in my sleep. Want some help?


[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387500"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387500[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387557"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387557[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387585"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387585[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1387749"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1387749[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1389177"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1389177[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1389182"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1389182[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1389187"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1389187[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72877&view=findpost&p=1389219"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1389219[/url]

Just a handful of links. Most are less than a paragraph and in direct response to you. I am sure it is worth your time sir.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1389180' date='Sep 20 2007, 12:50 PM']Phil, obviously you havn't been here for very long. If you look around a little but, you can see that i've been going through a crisis. many people here have helped me, from an indiscriminate objective point of view. i've come to the conclusion again that catholicism goes against the truth of the gospel. if one can't see that then i'm afraid that they need to "test all things" aka testing the scripture with many of the made up things that satan has infused into the church to lead people astray. allowing people to think that they can pray to dead people and pray to the earthly mother of Jesus Christ. Jesus was begotten, mary was a human being just like us.

you guys tell me to rip books out of my bible..what exactly is your standard to test things? the pope? we are instructed to test all things.. i really don't think we should test them with the pope, that's just me.

its not wise, considering bishops themselves have stated that they believe that the antichrist will be a pope.[/quote]

It does not matter how long anybody was anywhere. A logical fallacy is stil a logical fallacy. I am sorry that you must ground your Protestantism upon logical error, and I warn you that if deep down inside you can see what I am saying that you will not turn your back on my exhortation.

Additionally, you tell us that you are sorry that we cannot see Protestant doctrines which are apparently sitting "right there" in the "book". This could mean one of two things. First, we are idiots that do not know how to comprehend what we read. Second, we [i]can[/i] comprehend what we read but we are so evil inside that we twist the Scriptures to say what we want them to say.

Neither of those are reasonable, dear brother in Christ. There is however a third possibility: you have done a bad job at convincing us that your novel Protestant interpretations of Scripture are ontologically in accordance with the true teachings of Christ. Do not blame us for this outcome; I have already pointed out a glaring logical fallacy in your reasoning.

You continue with the fallacious arguments in accusing us of saying that one should rip pages out of the Bible. This fallacy is called the straw man fallacy. That is not what was meant by the author and you know it.

I caution you, brother, not to lean on your own understanding of things (Proverbs 3.5) and to trust the Body that Christ knitted together by his Spirit.

Please do not run away. We are your brothers in Christ and come to you in charity inviting you to come back to the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Your zeal is admirable; we must all be sure that our zeal, though, is rooted in knowledge.

God bless you and please do return,

Philip

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1389243' date='Sep 20 2007, 02:14 PM']you're correct, mateo might have been a little biased in the way he created this topic

is there anything else you wanted to mention? sorry i'm really busy i should be writing an essay for tomorrow.

if you just mention it below i can get back to you later rev

and thanks for sticking up for me.[/quote]

You go to Gordon College? I have a cousin there and I used to live in that area (Danvers, MA). My grandfather was a professor at Gordon Conwell and my uncle is on the board there. What a small world!

Now if only they will all become Catholic! (Well, technically my grandfather is a Catholic now since he passed away and is either in heaven or on his way!).

God bless, ck.

[ckozlowski]

thanks phil and rev,

This is my assignment:

"Review the Torah passages (Exodus 20-23, Lev 26 and Deut 28-31) and then read Isaiah 56:1-8. (You have already seen part of this!) How is the prophet a “covenant enforcement mediator”? Look in several commentaries for interpretive issues in this passage. Be certain to draw on details of both the Torah and prophetic passages as foundational for your thoughts. How would you preach or teach this text to a community of believers in the 21st century?"

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1389367' date='Sep 20 2007, 04:45 PM']thanks phil and rev,

This is my assignment:

"Review the Torah passages (Exodus 20-23, Lev 26 and Deut 28-31) and then read Isaiah 56:1-8. (You have already seen part of this!) How is the prophet a “covenant enforcement mediator”? Look in several commentaries for interpretive issues in this passage. Be certain to draw on details of both the Torah and prophetic passages as foundational for your thoughts. How would you preach or teach this text to a community of believers in the 21st century?"[/quote]

That sounds like a fascinating assignment. I would be very much interested to read your paper when it is done (no accusations on logic, I promise!). What is the page requirement?

Ha ha....I remember back in college when it was such a drag to write a 10-page paper. Now I could write 50 pages without even blinking an eye!

I especially love, in the description of the New Covenant in Isaiah 56.7, the Lord stating that the sacrifices in that new covenant will be pleasing to him....ahem, the Mass anyone? You may want to mention this, ckozlowski, in your paper.

God bless. I will keep you in my prayers for what will doubtlessly be a long night =D

Farewell,

Philip

Edited September 20, 2007 by Lord Philip

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1388471' date='Sep 19 2007, 02:20 AM']Thanks ironmonk
Why didn't you just give me the link to the catholic encyclopedia?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05490a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05490a.htm[/url]

[/quote]


Because many people do not click the links.

It's nice to know that some people do click links.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Socrates]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1388967' date='Sep 20 2007, 04:49 AM']fair enough. now here's the hard task:

tell my why james was the head of the church in jerusalem then??

tell me why peter was off in the background and not even very much involved in the church itself?

why did paul have to rebuke peter when he was being a hypocrite?

he may have been a rock, but that doesn't make anyone infallible. i think this is a common mistake many have made and many will make. If paul didn't rebuke peter to his face, the gentiles would have thought that they had to be circumcised according to the mosaic law if they wanted fellowship with early jewish Christians. he was supporting old covenant ideology, he was creating division..therefore he would have led christians astray.. does this sound fimiliar?

clearly not even peter was infallible. if someone tries to argue this... we'll lets say it won't be an effective argument.

when peter turned his back on the gentiles, they were hurt. so if paul had to rebuke peter in front of everyone around them, how could he be the first trustworthy/infallible/first pope?

i am not buying the infallibility argument. i've been thinking about this a lot and i honestly think that this whole infallibility ideology has allowed false doctrine to creep its way into the church, once true followers of Christ realized that this went against the truth of the gospel, the true church continued to build and left behind what no longer served a purpose, having left behind the truth of the gospel. i now think that Christ did give peter the keys. if he didn't give him the keys maybe true christians would have been like the gentiles if paul never rebuked peter according to God's [font="Palatino Linotype"]Word.[/font] In other words true christians would have been led astray with the rest of the catholic church. But we weren't. We rebuked in the name of Christ Jesus according to the truth of the gospel. Just as paul rebuked peter according to the truth of the gospel.

wadda ya think?

you say the pope can be as corrupt as he wants but he can't teach anything morally wrong and that he's trustworthy... does that really make sense if peter himself was not trustworthy?

i'm not trying to impose myself guys, i'm just expressing my opinion now that i've had some time to think things over. obviously my views are offensive. but Jesus said that the truth of the gospel is offensive.

just some food for thought.[/quote]
It seems you misunderstand the meaning of Papal infallibility, a common misunderstanding. The Pope is only infallable when making official declarations on Faith and Morals in the role of Pope. It does not mean the Pope cannot sin or otherwise make mistakes.

In Acts 15, it is Peter who makes the official declaration concerning Judaizing Gentiles. Peter was Pope; James was Bishop of Jerusalem.

In Galations, Paul rebukes the actions of Peter, not his teaching. Again papal infallibility is not the same as papal inpeccability. Saints have been known to rebuke Popes through history.

Here's a good [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp"][b]article on Papal Infallibility[/b].[/url]

Heres a [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp"]list of good articles on Peter, the Church, and the Papacy[/url], if you're interested in learning more.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]With the exception of the gnostics and perhaps the Arians I disagree with this statement. The Church did not rebaptize heretics ( a doctrine that stands today) and baptism is the sacrament of initiation in to Christianity. Therefore those who were baptized in these heretical groups were considered Christians if they were not re-baptized. I don't believe the Arians were rebaptized. Though I can't say for sure. The gnostics likely weren't baptized.

I disagree Dairy, that the CCC says that those not formerly Catholic are not Christian. Is that what you meant or am i reading you wrong?[/quote]

which is ironic thes thought i was saying that. i actually was saying there were christians other than catholics before the reformation. and thes, who thought i was saying that the CC taught that noncatholics weren't christian, made sure to point out that there were christians then. little did he know what i really was arguing. i wonder if he woulda got my back if he really knew. i'm sure it would have passed his mind that they're really christian, but woder if he would have voiced it.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote]It was corrected by the holy spirit. Why do you think we rebuked the catholic church when it went bad?[/quote]
We've repeatedly asked us to show us [b] where[/b] it went bead
also,you should tell us [b] when[/b] it happened.
To me,it seems that you just assume that the catholic church went wrong at some point,but history does'nt support that.

[quote]i fear c is beginning to turn into another budge.[/quote]
I've said that on the first page already.

[thessalonian]

Yes dairy I would have got your back. I'm proud of you lately.

[ckozlowski]

[mod]Link Removed. --Era Might[/mod]

watch the whole video, what do you guys think?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm sure this would be the official position
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/whore_of_babylon.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/whore_of_babylon.asp[/url]

notice at the end, if not the whore, then the bride.

but, that link just shows how it's not necessarily the CC. it doesn't prove that it's not.

plus, to assign the CC as the whore i think is giving it much credit. people recognize there's something to it. they don't want to join, so they call it the whore. if they are giving it credit, and it's reasonably disputable whether it's the whore, you have to take that credit and consider whether it's teh bride.

[ckozlowski]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1390812' date='Sep 22 2007, 03:49 PM']i'm sure this would be the official position
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/whore_of_babylon.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/whore_of_babylon.asp[/url]

notice at the end, if not the whore, then the bride.

but, that link just shows how it's not necessarily the CC. it doesn't prove that it's not.

plus, to assign the CC as the whore i think is giving it much credit. people recognize there's something to it. they don't want to join, so they call it the whore. if they are giving it credit, and it's reasonably disputable whether it's the whore, you have to take that credit and consider whether it's teh bride.[/quote]

not convinced?

read the contradictions of your faith..then tell me what you think.

[url="http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/cat001.html"]http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/cat001.html[/url]

[ckozlowski]

that's the only reason why i consider it the whore in revelation

it all fits the description.."drunken with the blood of the saints"

the catholic church persecuted millions throughout history.. their crime? reading the bible.

just look into it.

start by looking at the contradictions.

[ckozlowski]

[url="http://www.worldslastchance.com/index.php"]http://www.worldslastchance.com/index.php[/url]