- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings
Posted on 1/2/24 at 2:53 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 1/2/24 at 2:53 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Are you aware that Jesus Christ left His Church in the hands of fallible men when he gave the reins to Peter and the Apostles?
I know that the apostles were tasked with going out and making disciples of all men.
0
Posted on 1/2/24 at 3:06 pm to Revelator
The Old Testament verifies that God ordained a priesthood to guide the Jewish people.
He did not say “here is a book”
The New Testament verifies that Christ left a church to guide his people. Again Jesus did not say “here is a book”
It baffles me that some can not see that the new covenant follows the templet of the old covenant.
Jesus “ I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”
He did not say “here is a book”
The New Testament verifies that Christ left a church to guide his people. Again Jesus did not say “here is a book”
It baffles me that some can not see that the new covenant follows the templet of the old covenant.
Jesus “ I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”
This post was edited on 1/2/24 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 1/2/24 at 3:15 pm to Revelator
quote:
The Bible says all believers have the Holy Spirit
Alright, so how do you decide which Holy-Spirit-endowed believer's interpretation of the Bible to trust? Because there are a lot of believers with a lot of different interpretations of scripture in the Protestant world.
I'll provide the Catholic answer: It's the Church to whom he granted teaching authority.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 3:17 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
The Old Testament verifies that God ordained a priesthood to guide the Jewish people. He did not say “here is a book”
And the New Testament is very clear that the priesthood was abolished at the cross. It goes on to call believers a royal priesthood.
quote:
The New Testament verifies that Christ left a church to guide his people. Again Jesus did not say “here is a book”
He actually said he’d send the Holy Spirt to guide us into all truth
This post was edited on 1/2/24 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 1/2/24 at 3:22 pm to CatholicLSUDude
quote:
Alright, so how do you decide which Holy-Spirit-endowed believer's interpretation of the Bible to trust? Because there are a lot of believers with a lot of different interpretations of scripture in the Protestant world.
Each person will be judged as an individual and not a collective. No one will be judged by whether he or she was part of any particular church. The Bible says we receive the Holy Spirit when we become believers and he will guide us into all truth. It also says we are to test every spirit to see if it’s from God or not.
So ultimately, it’s up to the believer to decipher what is truth and what is error and to act accordingly.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 3:33 pm to Revelator
quote:
And the New Testament is very clear that the priesthood was abolished at the cross. It goes on to call believers a royal priesthood
True.
He abolished the old priesthood.
And he established a new one.
Literally and spiritually.
So you are correct
Posted on 1/2/24 at 3:34 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
And he established a new one.
The Bible never says this. Ever
Hebrews 10:11-13
11 ¶ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool….
19 ¶ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Jesus is our High Priest
This post was edited on 1/2/24 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 1/2/24 at 4:00 pm to Revelator
quote:
Jesus is our High Priest
Yes he is
Posted on 1/2/24 at 4:21 pm to Revelator
We speak different languages.
Let me explain.
When I say “I’ve been studying Catholicism most of my life”
You hear “I’ve been studying a man made system of beliefs”
But I hear “ I’ve been studying Gods plan of salvation for the human race”
You believe man established the Catholic Church.
I believe God established the Catholic Church.
When you point out flaws errors of the RCC I see the flaws of sinful people within the church but you see it as the flaws of the church itself.
The Catholic Church acknowledges your faith in Christ and hopes for your salvation.
We feel that you have accepted one of the 7 channels of grace that Jesus established for men to be saved. We do not understand why you would reject the other 6 free gifts from Christ.
I hope this helps you understand us better, even if we don’t agree.
Let me explain.
When I say “I’ve been studying Catholicism most of my life”
You hear “I’ve been studying a man made system of beliefs”
But I hear “ I’ve been studying Gods plan of salvation for the human race”
You believe man established the Catholic Church.
I believe God established the Catholic Church.
When you point out flaws errors of the RCC I see the flaws of sinful people within the church but you see it as the flaws of the church itself.
The Catholic Church acknowledges your faith in Christ and hopes for your salvation.
We feel that you have accepted one of the 7 channels of grace that Jesus established for men to be saved. We do not understand why you would reject the other 6 free gifts from Christ.
I hope this helps you understand us better, even if we don’t agree.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 4:26 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
I hope this helps you understand us better, even if we don’t agree
I’ve understood your position from the beginning, but simply don’t believe it. Salvation is a personal thing, and no one needs a church to accomplish it.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 4:55 pm to Revelator
quote:
’ve understood your position from the beginning, but simply don’t believe it. Salvation is a personal thing, and no one needs a church to accomplish it.
That’s not a risk I’m willing to take.
In the Old Testament if you were not a Jew you were not one of gods people.
I agree with you that Jesus opened the door to all people to be members but just as the Jews had laws and commandments in order to be a member in good standing so Christian’s have similar (but much less restrictive) rules as well. One of those rules is that you must be an active member of the visible body of Christ.
On one level I would agree that you are an active member of that body.
And o think the church would agree. But I am just not willing to separate myself from the visible body. I think Christ wanted unity and he wanted us to do all that god requires.
When the church says outside the CC there is no salvation, you think they are damning you to hell.
I would never make such a proclamation but I’m also not willing to take that chance.
(I need all the help I can get)
Not kidding.
Jesus humbled himself and made John the Baptist baptise him over John’s objection saying “lets us do all that God requires”
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:13 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
When the church says outside the CC there is no salvation, you think they are damning you to hell. I would never make such a proclamation but I’m also not willing to take that chance. (I need all the help I can get) Not kidding.
Guntoter, you seem like a very sincere guy and I appreciate what you are trying to do. But, I tried the Catholic path for 20 years and it’s not for me. I’ve been born again for over 40 years and I know the Holy Sprit resides in me and I am at peace and have joy in my present place.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:15 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
Not historical???
Correct.
quote:
They were all written in the first century and they are 4 independent accounts yet they all agree on much of the content.
Going to have to disagree. They are not independent accounts. Mark copied some of his material from Paul’s epistles. Matthew copied and changed Mark. Luke copied both and contradicted both. Those three aren’t called the “synoptic gospels” for nothing. In some cases they copy word for word, sentence for sentence, paragraphs in the same order. John used those as sources but at least he didn’t blatantly plagiarize and put it in his own words.
They agree on much but also disagree on much… which was the purpose of the scribes writing different versions in an attempt to correct and overwrite each other.
quote:
Also many atheist scholars disagree with you as well
No. In fact, if they believed they were historically accurate, they probably wouldn’t be atheists.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:23 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
No. In fact, if they believed they were historically accurate, they probably wouldn’t be atheists.
What is your definition of historically accurate.
We obviously don’t use the same definition.
Under my definition even if Jesus was not divine the gospels are still historical documents.
Under you definition if Jesus just performed Majic tricks and performed No miracles then it’s not historical.
Do you know who Bart erhman is?
This post was edited on 1/2/24 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:25 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
You mis understand my point.
I think I understood your analogy of the 8 point and the more elaborate story of the 7 point. I agree with you those two deer stories are not contradictory. What if one story it was a mule deer and one was a whitetail? What if one was an elk and the other a whitetail? What if one was a whitetail and the other a Barbary sheep? At what point are the stories contradictory?
quote:
You seem to have invested a lot of time trying prove something wrong that Catholics never believed in
A lot of time? Those were the ones on the top of my head I could type in 3 minutes on the toilet. Sorry I thought you were a biblical literalist when you said there were basically no contradictions.
quote:
No Catholic would ever disagree with your point.
I’m a “Catholic” atheist and was raised Catholic and I can tell you the vast majority of Catholics would have no idea about any of the contradictions or really much of the subject matter posted on this forum. Catholics have a reputation for not reading the Bible. Much of my family goes to church every holy day of obligation and doesn’t even own a Bible.
quote:
But your point doesn’t prove the Bible is not historical lol
Did baby Jesus go straight from Bethlehem to Nazareth? Or did he detour and first go to Egypt then to Nazareth. Both of those cannot be historically accurate. At most only one could be, but personally I don’t think either is. Either way, to claim “the Bible” is historically accurate is a lie.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:34 pm to Revelator
quote:
But, I tried the Catholic path for 20 years and it’s not for me. I’ve been born again for over 40 years and I know the Holy Sprit resides in me and I am at peace and have joy in my present place.
I know a number of people in similar situations and the older I get the more I understand your position and sympathize with you. The church (people running it ) have hurt a lot of people over the years. They have disappointed and let down many.
I tend to agree with the famous author, Dante. Who said “ the floor of hell is paved with skulls of bishops”
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:49 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
Do you know who Bart erhman is?
He’s the guy who argues for the historical Jesus’ existence by saying “come on, man!”
He doesn’t believe the gospels are historically accurate and he also believes the bits about the historical Jesus in Josephus’ actual historical accounts to be inserted forgeries by later Christians.
Apart from his compelling arguments on the subjects of the ahistorcity of the gospels and the forgeries inserted into Josephus’ he makes a great case for the subject of “born again” Christians. The Greek word used in John has two meanings - “from above” and “again”. It is the double meaning that is the subject of the conversation in John. “Jesus” says no, not born again, but from above. Unless Jesus was talking in Greek, he didn’t actually say that. There’s no way that conversation could have been translated from Aramaic to Greek.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:52 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I think I understood your analogy
No , you did not.
My fault though. It needs much clarification.
The same exact deer can be both an 8 or a 7 point buck depending upon the scoring system that is used.
But no matter.
I understand your position better than you know. The trip to Egypt was just inserted to make it conform to the old test narrative.
Maybe so.
The gospels are still historical.
Pilot was a real person, Felix was a real Roman. The apostles were real people.
Hell … until 20 years ago a lot of people like you said Caiephus was not a real person because there is no corroborating evidence to prove he existed . They found his ossuary with his name on it. I don’t think the Jews that found it have a reason to lie.
The people are real the places are real the events are mostly real by even secular standards.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 6:11 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
. The Greek word used in John has two meanings - “from above” and “again”. It is the double meaning that is the subject of the conversation in John. “Jesus” says no, not born again, but from above. Unless Jesus was talking in Greek, he didn’t actually say that. There’s no way that conversation could have been translated from Aramaic to Greek.
Lmao.
4000 years judeao / Christian history and this is what you rest your case on.
You are a troll.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 7:06 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
No , you did not. My fault though. It needs much clarification. The same exact deer can be both an 8 or a 7 point buck depending upon the scoring system that is used. But no matter.
I understood it perfectly. You misunderstood my understanding. Then you didn’t answer any of my questions.
By your logic, the movie Forrest Gump was “historical”, because it was set in real historical places and he interacted with real historical people.
“Historically accurate” on the other hand means that it actually really happened in the manner described. Historically accurate is what I’m concerned with.
This post was edited on 1/2/24 at 7:10 pm
Page 18 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News