And for some Humor...

Farlander

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by Preacher
Really?... Prove it...
Show us where in the Scripture it says that Peter "certainly believed he had that authority"... Furthermore, I know of no reference to a "St. Linus", either. Show us that one...
"That's just the way it was" is a cop-out unless you can back it up with Scripture...
Hoooo, boy!...
It's commonly known history. Read the letters of the early Church fathers and other documents of the early Church and you will see it, clear as day. You can't use Scripture as your only source of Christian history. The Bible is not a history book. It's purpose is to convey religious truth. Scripture is not that relevent to this part of the discussion.

This article you refer to raises far more doubt & skepticism than it purports to answer. Indulgences good only in certain places, some only good when attached to some "holy" object (crucifix, rosary, medal), the obtaining of an indulgence for someone who's already dead (Don't Mormons basically do something quite similar?... I guess if you buy into the Purgatory thing, it makes some sense, but that's shaky enough as it is), the whole "penance" thing, Baptism as a supposed way to obtain forgiveness for sin, the notion of "Purgatory", etc... I find little or no Scriptural basis for these things I just cited. I should be curious to know how they justify them, or is that also "just the way it is" too?...
There is little to no scriptural basis for a lot things (though there is some for Purgatory, etc.). Why should there be? The authority to teach was given to the Church, not to the Bible, which didn't even exist for a great deal of time. Christ never said anything about any Bible (not to imply he did not think the Jewish Scriptures were important - of course he did, but there is nothing that indicates he commanded the New Testament to be written). And since the canon of Scripture was set by the Church, you can be sure there is nothing in it contradictory to Church teaching. If there were, they would have simply left it out, obviously. So arguing that every religious truth must be present in Scripture or that anything in Scripture is contradictory to Catholic teaching is an argument that is lost before it is even made.

It's really quite plain if you simply read my post. The "other" Catholic churches may be quite similar to the RCC/etc., but they are not the same. Were they the same, they wouldn't be named by other names, comprendes?... If they were the same, then I would be able to go to church at a different "type" of Catholic church each week, and find the psalms, readings, homily, liturgy, etc. were all JUST like I remember them as a boy & young teen at RCC. Somehow, I don't think that's the case; are you saying that they all WOULD be the same?... If not, then stand down and quit beating a dead horse. I address the RCC because it's the one I know from having been raised that way. The "others" don't apply because their ways of doing things/procedures/policies/etc. are varying degrees different than the RCC that I remember.
They are the same, and they DO have the same name - The Catholic Church. You can go to mass in a different Catholic Rite each week, and you will get the same thing. They may use icons instead of statues in their churches, wear different looking vestments, etc., but the substance is all the same. There will be scriptures read, the Eucharist will be celebrated - it is a Catholic Mass, wherever you go. The point here is that it is not a true statement to say that the Catholic Church does not allow married men to become priests. It does. There are married priests.

Right, just like I said.
Be that as it may, but Vatican II was not my point. My point was that the RCC has been getting further & further away from Scripture & from their original mission over the last several decades, and instances like the ones I cited are evidence of same. There are those who say that the RCC is the "false church" that will ally itself with AntiChrist in the last days. I can't say I necessarily believe that, but these kinds of things certainly have me scratching my head as to whether such folks may indeed be on to something there. Ultimately only time will tell, but still...
::shudders::
Their original misison? To preach the Gospel, tend to the spiritual lives of the faithful, serve the poor...it's all there. There have been liturgucal abuses in the past that make what we have today look like nothing. Frankly, I'm relieved to be a Catholic now, when we have a great and holy man as Pope, when our communiucations technolgy allows us free access to important and relevent Church documents, and when a new wave of orthodoxy is washing over the Catholic youth. There is no fundamental difference from the very first days of the Church to what we have now in terms of the mission and function of the Church. It has survived for two millennia only by the grace of God. We have his promise that the gates of hell would never overcome it. If it were a mere mortal institution, what with all the challenges and hardships it has faced, it would have gone down in flames long ago. Satan hates the Church, and I'm sure he will always make sure we are challenged and our faith put to the test, but he will never win. Indeed, he has already lost.
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Originally posted by Preacher
I didn't know about the Jews who believe the historicity of the Resurrection, yet deny His Messiahship, though...
There aren't that many, but there are a few scholars who do. They believe the resurrection as the "lesser of two evils", I forget what the other 'evil' is, Jesus status as Lord and Saviour, perhaps?

Originally posted by Preacher
...the post-execution sightings of Him in Judea for the next 40 days or so...
I think a core difference between sightings of Jesus and 'sightings' of Elvis is that we had a large number of witnesses seeing Jesus, and miraculous things occuring as a result, such as the Holy Spirit granting the ability to speak in many 'tongues'. 'Sightings' of Elvis, Loch Ness, etc, are not credible because they are few and far between, have little evidence to back it up and are often contradictory. They can also be deliberate hoaxes or innocent cases of mistaken identity.

Speaking of mistaken identity, a visual illusion on the shores of Sydney along a white wooden paling fence produced images of the Virgin Mary for some. The phenomenon was so bizarre that some began worshipping the image. Vandals eventually defaced and destroyed the fence - both outcomes are not good.

Anyway, Ghost, the point is not the mention of the word "virgin" but that if a daughter is pledged to be married to someone, yet had slept about before marrying, she is to be condemned.

Indeed the body of Jesus could have been stolen, but they would have needed to overcome Roman soldiers, and moved a large rock to get to it. There is little evidence to support the case that the apostles took off with the body, other than the story circulated by the Jewish priests to cover up the resurrection. I believe one can visit the graves of various religious 'founders', but no one knows where Jesus is buried because there is no body buried!

The point about the apostles wasn't a 'conversion', but a huge transformation of their personalities. These were timid, possibly uneducated men who followed Jesus possibly becase they thought he was an earthly king who would overthrow the Roman Empire and restore Israel to the glory seen in the days of King David and King Solomon. When Jesus was tried and executed, most of the apostles were probably hiding, fearful for their lives. Peter disowned Jesus several times when questioned of his association with Jesus.

After Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the apostles became bold speakers for Jesus, so eloquent and convincing that they gathered thousands of fellow believers. They did not fear persecution, imprisonment or death because the resurrection of Jesus had such an impact on them that they were completely changed men.

I have to go to class again, so that's the end of this post...

[BTW, Farlander and Preacher, why are you arguing over (relatively) petty things?

Until tomorrow...]
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Preacher
There are those who say that the RCC is the "false church" that will ally itself with AntiChrist in the last days.
There are those who say all kinds of stupid and mindless things too, but you shouldn't listen to them. This is preposterous badmouthing, complete nonsense based on nothing but thin air and delirious ideas. It’s a shame that you give this kind of argument any credit, and it certainly erodes the your credibility. If you think those people have any idea of what they are talking about, really, your perception of reality can’t be really working very well.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
You read the bible Brett? There's a line from it that I've memorised. Ezekiel 25:17 The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and a finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :cool: Actually, it's a rather good line that I feel applies in a number of circumstances.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Ghost

Deuteronomy 22:20: i can´t find nothing about the virgin or the word ''virgin''
22:21, the word ''betulim'' isn´t ''virgin/s'' nor the verb ''nabla'' is ''lose the virginity'', still i will check in the other Torah.
I'm confused, Ghost. While I don't know how the passage is phrased in Hebrew, in English the whole point of that passage is to emphasize that a woman is to remain a virgin before marriage. If her husband finds, upon their first sexual encounter together, that she's NOT a virgin when they married, he has grounds to bring a charge against her, and if found guilty by the town elders, she is to be stoned. If not guilty, the husband has to pay her father a fine for slandering her (& her father's) good name. Verse 21 goes on to say that the reason for stoning her would be that she has "been promiscuous while still in her father's house". I can't see any other explanation that would fit the passage than how it reads in my (English) Bible. Mebbe you could provide an English translation of how it reads in your book, plz?...

Deuteronomy 22:22 had to do with adultery, so virginity is a moot point there

Yeah, an empty tomb, could be a stolen body, but it was very much in the Jews/Pharisees interest to eventually produce the body, yet they never did. See also the point Wedge makes about how relatively impossible it would've been for Yeshua's followers to have stolen the body. As to how can this be related with the resurrection, the Resurrection (incredible of a story as it may be) is the only explanation that accounts for all the known facts. Any other explanation that's been put forth thus far leaves some major facts unaccounted for.
Originally posted by Farlander

It's commonly known history. Read the letters of the early Church fathers and other documents of the early Church and you will see it, clear as day. You can't use Scripture as your only source of Christian history. The Bible is not a history book. It's purpose is to convey religious truth. Scripture is not that relevent to this part of the discussion.
Fine. Give me a quote or three. I'm not trying to use the Word as a source of history. The Papacy is a doctrine, and doctrinal truth is indeed best found in the Scriptures. Anything written solely by the hand of men is, at best, a further exegesis of what is contained in the text. At worst, it is heresy, the "traditions of men instead of the commands of God"... That's what's so scary.

There is little to no scriptural basis for a lot things... Why should there be?
...The authority to teach was given to the Church, not to the Bible, which didn't even exist for a great deal of time.
...Christ never said anything about any Bible (not to imply he did not think the Jewish Scriptures were important - of course he did, but there is nothing that indicates he commanded the New Testament to be written). And since the canon of Scripture was set by the Church, you can be sure there is nothing in it contradictory to Church teaching.
...So arguing that every religious truth must be present in Scripture or that anything in Scripture is contradictory to Catholic teaching is an argument that is lost before it is even made.
You have it all bass-ackwards, young Padawan (See my quote below from Matthew for a reference point).

The authority to teach was given to the apostles, yes. But their sources of truth were to be:

(a) The Bible (up to their time, the Jewish Scriptures)---This is God's written Word.
(b) The words & teachings of Christ Himself, ---He is the Living Word, and
(c) Whatsoever truths the Holy Spirit would reveal to them in time---This is the Revealed Word (at first; once it was all written down and canonized - as our New Testament - it then become part of the Written Word).
It is important to note that all three of these sources were to be, and indeed were/are, congruent with one another. You can't find any instance where Christ contradicted the Scriptures, and you won't find any instance where the Holy Spirit-revealed truth contradicts either Christ or the Bible of their time., etc. All are in harmony with one another. Would that the RCC was in harmony with them...

As to the Bible, you are wrong on all the points I cite above: To whit:
(1) It had existed since Moses first took pen to parchment
(2) If you note point (c) above, and read Matthew 28:18-20, you see that Christ did indeed command that the NT be written, albeit indirectly: It was the church's way of recording and preserving the things that Christ taught the apostles.
(3) I never said that Scripture is contradicted by RCC teaching; rather, it's the other way around: a significant amount of RCC teaching is contradicted by the Word. And, Christ said plenty about the Bible, as it then existed ( = our current OT). Indeed, He not only thought that the Jewish Scriptures were" important", He thought they were paramount (see Matthew 5:18-20)

So, we see that it is your argument that was lost before it was even made.

They are the same, and they DO have the same name - The Catholic Church. You can...The point here is that it is not a true statement to say that the Catholic Church does not allow married men to become priests. It does. There are married priests.
You weary me with your hairsplitting. I stated quite clearly what I meant by my first statement re: married priests, as well as my addressing only the RCC. Yet you refuse to understand what I meant, and/or still continue to want to pick a fight over this. I will not respond any more to these points. Wedge is right; these are relatively petty points in the grand scheme of things.

...There is no fundamental difference from the very first days of the Church to what we have now in terms of the mission and function of the Church. ... We have his promise that the gates of hell would never overcome it....Satan hates the Church, and I'm sure he will always make sure we are challenged and our faith put to the test, but he will never win...
For the original mission (AKA "The Great Commission"), see Matthew 28:18-20:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Clarification: When I said that they've been getting further away from their original mission, I meant in terms of how well they are or are not carrying that mission out. That was what I meant, not that the "Mission Statement" per se has been changed. On that note, there is plenty of worrisome stuff going on with how they've carried that mission out the last few decades, the situations I've already cited being prime examples. While the enemy may not ultimately overcome the Church, he can still give it a run for its money, and in these things, he is already doing so. Since time is already so short, the longer these things go on, the more souls may be lost for all eternity. Someone had best wake up and smell the coffee.
Originally posted by Delance

There are those who say all kinds of stupid and mindless things too, but you shouldn't listen to them. This is preposterous badmouthing, complete nonsense... It's a shame that you give this kind of argument any credit, and it certainly erodes the your credibility. If you think those people have any idea of what they are talking about....
Read the line you left out of my post:

"...I can't say I necessarily believe that, but these kinds of things certainly have me scratching my head as to whether such folks may indeed be on to something there...."

I didn't say I believed it, but I do think they're "on to something" in that they see the types of false teachings I cited, and are sounding an alarm of sorts. Inasmuch as anything that causes "the church" (RCC or whoever) to stray from the Truth of the gospel can be said to be the work of the devil, it certainly gives one cause to pause and scratch one's head. In a lost and fallen world, the truth needs to be defended, and error/false teaching need to be refuted (and if possible, corrected). Those who promulgate such things need to be called on the carpet. If the "false churchers" (for lack of a better term) are going a bit too far the other way, that's unfortunate, but you don't "throw the baby out with the bath water". No doubt the RCC is big enough to take it. I hope, however, that they are also "big enough" to learn and mend their ways where necessary.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Ghost
I believe that one of the guys in Pulp Fiction.
That he is. He's one of the guys that tries to cheat John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson out of drugs, and they blow him away after they talk about burgers and what their boss looks like.
 
Top