Is anyone planning on...............

[makesends]

I don't see a problem with their Christology, its what they have in addition to Christ thats the issue.

I'd say what they have in addition to Christ has a LOT to do with their Christology. It may not, officially, but for example, the sufficiency of Christ, the work of Christ, the person of Christ, the divinity of Christ, are all sullied, diminished and distorted by what they think they can or must add to Christ.

 

[Frank Robert]

I reread my post and I could find nowhere it it where I so much as mentioned or alluded to an attempt to convert me. All I said was that the only witness of the Catholic doctrines is more self witnessing of itself. IOW do your own homework and show your work, without using Catholic teachings to do so. If the RC is teaching something it should easily be found in the scriptures without having to interpret the scriptures to fit its own premise. Why is it there is only deflecting and the use of logical fallacies of one form or another in response to to what I and others say, and never any facing the issue head on with integrity?

I apologize for misunderstanding intentions.

 

[donadams]

Time? You think that will help?


Huh? Scripture is scripture. You expect scripture to say somewhere. "This is scripture" And maybe in another book, (which is not one of the 66) will say somewhere, "This is not scripture."
Give me a brake.

Now your not making any sense.

Transubstantiation, call no man father, purgatory, celibacy, check
But you forgot Mary!

Mother of God
Immaculate conception (sinless)
Perpetual virgin
Assumption into heaven
Queen of heaven and earth!

I’ll send the scriptural evidence next

 

[Mikeuk]

Again. Where does it teach in scripture to call a man "holy father."

I thought you were better informed than that.

God told Abram to call himself Father.
Paul calls himself father

Elsewhere , You are variously told to hate your Father, honour your father, and call no man father.
So Jesus was speaking in hyperbole.

The problem is??

 

[Mikeuk]

There is no apostolic church. Apostolic church refers to the teachings of the apostles in the first century as its foundation was being laid. It is laid. They laid it. If you do not know what that means, ask.

There are only churches that keep that teaching faithfully and those who do not. The RC does not as it adds to that foundation with the doctrines of men. Just as the Pharisees and scribes added to God's law, and devises its own means of approaching God.

And that statement defines why we all disagree.

The apostles handed down the faith -paradosis , tradition -“by word of mouth and letter “ to which you must “stay true”
The apostles appointed disciples who appointed others, succession to present day.
Which is why Scripture tells you not to “ lean on our own understanding “ but listen to those who “ were sent “ to preach.

Jesus also gave the power to “ bind and loose” which means give definitive judgement on disputes , power he Gave to the apostlesJointly and Peter alone. Which is why we can trust the judgement of bishops assembled in council.
That is why the “pillar and foundation of truth is the church “ to which you are told to take disputes.

Scripture only came later, the first canons were deemed heretical . The canon was a church decision.

where the rubber hits the road:

So what does John 6 mean ? Sadly the Bible was not written as an easy read manual.

I know you expressed an opinion A
based on your own understanding.

An equally valid opinion B
is Jesus really did mean eat His flesh , “without which you have no life in you” , indeed the word used for eat means “ gnaw “ as for meat , not “ consume “ geberally

We find out which is true by studying what Jesus apostles handed down in the first genegations.

We now exactly what John taught from his disciples , we can read in ignatius and iraneus .
Read the letter “ ignatius to smyrneans”. It really is a eucharist of the real flesh , valid ONLY if presided y a bishop in succession.
So unless you have a succession bishop you don’t have a valid eucharist.

Tradition the word handed down gives meaning to scripture,
Councils resolve Disputes . Authority,

All early fathers including Irenaus reinforced the need to listen to bishops, the importance of tradition , and the need to listen to Rome.

You are welcome to your opinion. The apostolic church doesnt agree and the eucharist has been the same in Essence for 2000 years since Jesus handed it to us. Eucharistic miracles confirm it.

We do not recrucify Christ, we simply join to the marriage supper of the lamb eternally present.
Time does not flow the same in heaven . God is ever present and transcends time.

 

[Arial]

I thought you were better informed than that.

God told Abram to call himself Father.
Paul calls himself father

Elsewhere , You are variously told to hate your Father, honour your father, and call no man father.
So Jesus was speaking in hyperbole.

The problem is??

The problem is that you refuse to address the question as asked. Where in scripture are we told to address a man as Holy Father?

The fact that again and again the question is changed in order to appear to provide an answer suggests the Catholics have been caught out in this one tiny matter, as adding to the Bible, considering itself as having a greater authority over the Bible or than the Bible. It also suggests that in arriving at Catholic doctrine they have no qualms in doing so. To those who do trust the Bible as the sole authority of doctrinal truth, this tells them the doctrines of the Catholic church are not trustworthy as to be aligned with Bible truth.

 

[donadams]

Again. Where does it teach in scripture to call a man "holy father."

Isa 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Key given to Peter Matt 16:18/19

All the saints are called holy
Saint means holy

Ephesians 4:12
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

 

[Arial]

Isa 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Key given to Peter Matt 16:18/19

All the saints are called holy
Saint means holy

Ephesians 4:12
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Still not answering the question as asked.

 

[Arial]

The apostles handed down the faith -paradosis , tradition -“by word of mouth and letter “ to which you must “stay true”
The apostles appointed disciples who appointed others, succession to present day.
Which is why Scripture tells you not to “ lean on our own understanding “ but listen to those who “ were sent “ to preach.

I do not respond to the statements in this post for your sake, but for the sake of refuting the presumptions of the Catholic denomination in it.

Paradosis from NT Greek Lexicon: objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching. You failed to give any particular scripture reference in which you are taking the use of paradosis as to handing down the faith. No do you give your definition of "the faith."

Where does it say that the apostles appointed disciples who appointed others, and after you do that, where does it say that this is a succession in any way other than one person following another as a natural process? Where does it say the succession has anything to do with lineage?

Who and what within scripture determines "those who were sent to preach?" I know what the Catholics say, and you know what the Catholic religion says, but you have that as your foundation in saying whatever it is you say. Yet you do not say what that is, or where that idea came from, you simply presume it as fact. And you yourself are leaning on this understanding of men and taking it as your understanding also. Asking those who read to accept this understanding of men to be of God.

Jesus also gave the power to “ bind and loose” which means give definitive judgement on disputes , power he Gave to the apostlesJointly and Peter alone. Which is why we can trust the judgement of bishops assembled in council.
That is why the “pillar and foundation of truth is the church “ to which you are told to take disputes.

How it is possible to give power both jointly and to one alone aside, maybe we should actually look at the scripture without just taking a couple of words from the discourse. Matt 16


15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[b] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[c] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[d] in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Identify what was revealed, who revealed it, what Jesus is referring to when He says "this rock", which is what was revealed, identify what is bound and loosed.

But you say that is why we can trust the judgement of "bishops assembled in council." What council? What criteria is used to appoint said bishops? Why are we to trust this council and these bishops? By what authority?

Where does scripture say the pillar and foundation of truth is the church. Wouldn't that be Jesus who is head of the church, and its cornerstone and the Bible apostles the foundation? And what exactly do you mean when you say "the church?"

I will cover the rest later. Break time.

 

[donadams]

As usual you change the post you are responding to so you have an answer to the changed post, and continue as though that is what was said; And then post reams of scripture that the Catholic religion has interpreted for you and therefore carries only that interpretation and means nothing to support what you claim.

What was said referenced calling a man Holy Father. Not father.

Same diff

 

[donadams]

See post #165.

That refers to works alone and not faith and works done in grace united to Christ
Certainly does not mean faith alone

Thanks

 

[Eleanor]

That refers to works alone and not faith and works done in grace united to Christ
Certainly does not mean faith alone

Thanks

"only by God’s grace—completely unmerited by works—that one is saved."

That is what it states, and that is my point.

 

[Arial]

Scripture only came later, the first canons were deemed heretical . The canon was a church decision.

Irrelevant to the subject being discussed.

So what does John 6 mean ? Sadly the Bible was not written as an easy read manual.

I know you expressed an opinion A
based on your own understanding.

It wasn't based on my own understanding but on a careful examination of the pertinent scriptures. There is an element of one' s own understanding in everything for the understanding we have, even though it may be God given truth is the understanding that we have. It is being used to simply discount what someone else says, and that is not valid. It is a failure on the other parties inability or unwillingness to support their own beliefs by doing the work of validation.

An equally valid opinion B
is Jesus really did mean eat His flesh , “without which you have no life in you” , indeed the word used for eat means “ gnaw “ as for meat , not “ consume “ geberally

That cannot be a valid opinion because Jesus was a Jew and He was speaking to Jews, who were forbidden by God's law to drink blood and eat human flesh. Why do you think they found it so repugnant and impossible to swallow (no pun intended?) The fact that the word used means to gnaw as for meat is completely irrelevant to what was being said, and a very lame if not silly way of deriving the meaning of what Jesus said. It could only be a metaphor, meaning, referring back to His earlier conversation as He being the bread of life that came down from heaven, only in Him is life found. You do not really think He meant He was actual literal bread do you?

We find out which is true by studying what Jesus apostles handed down in the first genegations.

The first generation is the church as we see it in the first century in the pages of the Bible----and before the Bible, the writings of the apostles. Not in the first generations following their deaths unless what they taught was in agreement with what the apostles taught.

We now exactly what John taught from his disciples , we can read in ignatius and iraneus .
Read the letter “ ignatius to smyrneans”. It really is a eucharist of the real flesh , valid ONLY if presided y a bishop in succession.
So unless you have a succession bishop you don’t have a valid eucharist.

John the Baptist had disciples. John the apostle did not, unless you can show me the Bible saying that he did or you are using the term loosely.

The fact that Ignatius wrote something that claims the bread and wine becomes the actual flesh and blood of Christ does not make it so. That is a logical fallacy. What do the apostles say about it? And here we are back to a bishop in succession, with no validation of the line of succession or proof from the Bible that bishops are appointed according to a line that gives them authority of doctrine and interpretation, or who appoints them, or where they get the authority they claim.

The apostles set up structure within the NT church, not a hierarchy. The purpose was to keep the teachings, the foundation, of His church (not the RCC) solid and true as the church began. It was designed to keep all persons in leadership roles accountable to one another, the congregants, and the truth. They had to meet certain moral requirements as outlined in Timothy and Titus and had to be well versed in sound doctrine, and they had specific duties that often overlapped. They were appointed on these conditions, and not on anything else. There are successive appointments as time marches on, but not by succession. They were never given authority in the manner in which the Catholic denomination ordains itself.

Tradition the word handed down gives meaning to scripture,
Councils resolve Disputes . Authority,

That would depend on who handed down the word and what the word was they handed down. The meaning should produce the tradition, not the other way around.

Depends on who the council represents and whether how they resolve a dispute is consistent with biblical truth. There is no legitimate authority that undermines the authority of biblical teaching. If the "authority" is stating something from an authoritative position that they have to make the scriptures match when they clearly do not----as evidenced in Catholicism when all rebuttals to their erroneous teachings are ever and always met with nothing but more Catholic assumptions that proclaim authority over what the Bible says. Even when clearly the Bible says no such thing.

All early fathers including Irenaus reinforced the need to listen to bishops, the importance of tradition , and the need to listen to Rome.

You make that statement but do not say what in particular you are referring to and without showing it from it original source. It also presents Irenae
us as an authority in the matter and supporting that only with he was an early church father, as your authority in making the statement. A fallacy of epic proportions. Am I to listen to Rome because he said so? And what did he mean by Rome and what do you mean by Rome. I am waiting for some substance!

You are welcome to your opinion. The apostolic church doesnt agree and the eucharist has been the same in Essence for 2000 years since Jesus handed it to us. Eucharistic miracles confirm it.

Did you know that the Bible tells us that the devil himself performs false miracles? What are these miracles you allude to and how were they verified and proven. Why is it you expect people to just take your word for things when you produce either no proof or nothing but confirmation bias proof? And how is it you know what you call the eucharist essence has been the same as what you say it is for 2000 years? By miracles (unspecified and evidence not produced?)

We do not recrucify Christ, we simply join to the marriage supper of the lamb eternally present.

So which is it? Is the Eucharist the essence of literal flesh of Jesus or a lamb?

 

[Arial]

Same diff

If there is no difference why is only the pope called Holy Father?

 

[Mikeuk]

I do not respond to the statements in this post for your sake, but for the sake of refuting the presumptions of the Catholic denomination in it.

Paradosis from NT Greek Lexicon: objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching. You failed to give any particular scripture reference in which you are taking the use of paradosis as to handing down the faith.

So I respond in kind - not for your sake but to demonstrate the fallacies on which protestantism is based.
What was the point in saying that?

I assumed you knew scripture -
eg
you read the references to tradition before comment eg 2 thess 2:15
only those can preach who were sent romans 10:15
pillar of truth is household of God so physical church 1 Tim 3:15
take disputes to the church Matt 18:15
power to bind and loose to resolve disputes Matt 16:19

But most of all you need to read such as iraneus to discover what THOSE AT THE TIME thought it all meant.
Tradition.
The authority of succession bishops presided by rome.
And the eucharist of real flesh.


Do you really think Jesus was so Impotent to let it go off the rails in the first generations?

If you read scripture and have a different opinion , where do you go to resolve disputes?
the normal Protestant answer is schism. Which is why they have a myriad of opposing beliefs.
even the reformers didn’t agree on big Issues. Scripture needs a meaning handed by tradition.

 

[Arial]

Same diff

There are two possible reasons why the Catholic refuse to answer the question concerning calling a man Holy Father. Either they don't know because they never questioned it or they just are afraid to say. Here is the "official" answer from a Catholic source. Catholic.com

Catholics call the pope “Holy Father” not as an acknowledgement of his personal state of soul but as an expression of respect for his office as successor to Peter and head of the Church on earth. His is a holy office.

That does not change the fact there is One God and Father, one Holy Father. And that does not designate an office but who God and only God is. They give a title of God to a man.

 

[Arial]

So I respond in kind - not for your sake but to demonstrate the fallacies on which protestantism is based.
What was the point in saying that?

So you did not think I was simply arguing with you rather than defending and contending for the faith that saves.

I assumed you knew scripture -
eg
you read the references to tradition before comment eg 2 thess 2:15
only those can preach who were sent romans 10:15
pillar of truth is household of God so physical church 1 Tim 3:15
take disputes to the church Matt 18:15
power to bind and loose to resolve disputes Matt 16:19

I do know those scriptures, No need for insult to make your point. But you do not give them according to the Bible but according the the way in which the RCC with its self proclaimed authority on interpretation, interprets them. And they only basis for which they have on which to interpret them the way they do comes from themselves, not the scriptures. It calls itself the One universal only official church of Christ. But God did not appoint them to that position, Christ did not appoint them to that position the Bible did not. Who did? Themselves.

So try giving an interpretation to those scriptures in their entirety and within their context, using intellect, reason. logic, rules of interpretation, exegesis, other parts of the Bible, without Catholic dogma thrown in the mix as confirmation bias therefore ruling the day, and tell me what they are saying and what they mean. Can you do that?

But most of all you need to read such as iraneus to discover what THOSE AT THE TIME thought it all meant.
Tradition.

No I do not. Most of all I need to read the Bible and I do, and most of all you have the same need.

The authority of succession bishops presided by rome.
And the eucharist of real flesh.

Neither of which are in the Bible unless they are read into it with little to know understanding outside RCC indoctrination. You have given no proof of either of those things. You simply repeat the Catholic mantras. It is as though one cannot think for themselves and certainly should not be allowed to.

Do you really think Jesus was so Impotent to let it go off the rails in the first generations?

It has nothing to do with the power of Jesus, this going off the rails. I happen to believe that the rise of the RCC and its hierarchy and dictatorship over the religious life of everyone was the first and worst and most tenacious of all the going off the rails. Paul would be kicking the Catholic priests and bishops and pope out the door. Jesus Himself said the tares would grow alongside the wheat. He was the first to say there would be false teachers and false prophets and wolves in sheeps clothing seeking to devour the flock, disguising themselves as angels of light. There were those in the days of the apostles as we see form many of the letters, that were distorting the truth and exalting themselves. It is all part of the war.

Even many of the protestant churches have areas where they have gone off the rails. Personally I think it may be a winnowing, separating the true believer from those who borrow the name.

If you read scripture and have a different opinion , where do you go to resolve disputes?
the normal Protestant answer is schism. Which is why they have a myriad of opposing beliefs.
even the reformers didn’t agree on big Issues. Scripture needs a meaning handed by tradition.

Any disputes I may have with another I resolve with the scriptures. If the scriptures did not already have a meaning it would be useless and pointless and it would not be the word of God. Or does the Catholic tradition not consider it the word of God but the Catholic church as the word of God? Disputes within churches are handled in various ways and I am not concerned with that except in the church I attend, and then if it does not consider the word of God, I reject it.

Why is it that you think there should be no opposing beliefs, that all matters on religion and tradition must be settled by a central hierarchy in Rome and all must comply? That all people must think the same, believe the same, act the same, and if there is not this conformity then Christ's church fails? Why do you think it is the job of your denomination (and that is all it is, another denomination) to set these things, and order these things, as though Christ were impotent to seal and protect His church and His people?

Who cares who agrees with who on what in the past, or now. Agreement is not the issue. Salvation and the glory of God is the issue.

And scripture meaning handed by tradition? No. Scripture is God speaking, anointed men, appointed by God and instructed and inspired by the very Holy Spirit to give us what we need. To give us truth. Jesus spoke against trusting in and believing in the traditions of men. And that is all the RCC counts on and produces.

Since I addressed all that you said in this post, in spite of the fact that it just restated your position and did not address a single thing I said, suppose you go back to that post and address the things I said.

 

[donadams]

Still not answering the question as asked.

Good my turn why do you require it to be spelled out in scripture?

 

[donadams]

"only by God’s grace—completely unmerited by works—that one is saved."

That is what it states, and that is my point.

Then you can’t include faith?

 

[Eleanor]

Then you can’t include faith?

Faith is the product of grace, it is a gift (Php 1;29, Ac 13:48, Ac 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

Have you ever read the NT?