- 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: Pope (emeritus) Benedict has died
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:23 pm to VolcanicTiger
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:23 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
I know more than you, so why would I think ignorance is a virtue?
No you don’t.
Your “who are they” and “why should I care” comments about the church fathers is you wallowing in ignorance and acting as if it’s a virtue. So right there is an express demonstration that you in fact do not know more than me.
1
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:23 pm to gaetti15
quote:First, it's "Revelation."
what I always find funny about protestants is that they say the eucharist is metaphorical, but then take the book of revelations at face value.
this happens everywhere too
Second, that applies to some Protestants, but not enough to make such a broad generalization. Third, do Catholics not believe Revelation? Then that makes you a hypocrite in either case.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:25 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:I do.
No you don’t.
quote:
Your “who are they” and “why should I care” comments about the church fathers is you wallowing in ignorance and acting as if it’s a virtue. So right there is an express demonstration that you in fact do not know more than me.
I may not know everything you know, but the sum total of what I know dwarfs what you know. You can pay attention to those pathetic liars and losers who misled their sheep, I'll let you have that field of relative expertise, and keep all the rest for myself.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:28 pm to gaetti15
quote:Yep, humans are sinful with inconsistencies that pop up everywhere. It's why it's important to have a sound biblical hermeneutic so that you're less likely to go off the rails.
what I always find funny about protestants is that they say the eucharist is metaphorical, but then take the book of revelations at face value.
this happens everywhere too
I don't subscribe to a literal, chronological view of Revelation, FYI. It's apocalyptic literature and that sort of literature isn't meant to be taken at face value, literally. It's symbolic.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:29 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
I may not know everything you know, but the sum total of what I know dwarfs what you know.
Oh for Christ’s sake, Susan. Get over yourself. Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:33 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Self-awareness isn't your strong suit.
Get over yourself.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:37 pm to VolcanicTiger
Clearly it’s yours though.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:40 pm to RollTide1987
quote:You seem to think my interpretation of John 6 is novel for the reasons you provided. You seem to think that Jesus spoke plainly all the time and then when He was misunderstood, that He was quick to clarify for the sake of the people.
Yeah, and then he moves on. No one questions it and everyone seems to understand that he isn't speaking literal. It's in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 where he gets a lot of pushback because the people listening to him speak take him literally. Instead of hitting them with an analogy or a parable to make them better understand what he is saying, he doubles down and repeats himself, dwelling on this imagery much more than he does when he calls himself the light of the world or the vine or a door or a shepherd.
1. It's not unique. The woman at the well is a good example of this. Jesus tells her that He offers water that will provide eternal satisfaction and the woman thinks He's talking about actual water. Instead of clarifying, He tells her about her husbands, to both convict her of her sin as well as to prove His deity. However, He didn't explain what He meant about the water to her.
2. Jesus spoke in parables for the sake of hiding His true meaning. He was even asked about this in Matt. 13: Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. Jesus clarified His meaning most of the time to His intimate disciples so that He could teach them, getting them prepared for when His ministry was over. To the crowds, Jesus spoke in parables to purposefully veil His true meaning, because the things of God are spiritually discerned.
3. Just like the rich young ruler, Jesus was testing the faith of the crowd. He symbolically uses His body as bread (which, again, came shortly after the miracle where He fed the crowds bread) to see whether or not they would be willing to do what was necessary to follow Him. Were they seeking Him, or were they seeking food or something else? They weren't interested in Him, so they left, and He let them go.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:40 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:For some of us, it's difficult to work on being humble AND honest at the same time.
Clearly it’s yours though.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:You see this a lot, and that's the problem I have with people who are obsessed with the cutlery, the candles, the napkins, the plates, the side dishes, the condiments... and no interest in the main course. The RCC is the embodiment of that, IMO. "They say they want the Kingdom, but they don't want God in it." The NT downplays works, symbols, things we can do that aren't vehicles of love. Jesus told people over and over and over to believe and to love, and what are the cores of the RCC? Rituals and peripheral deities that they say aren't dieties because they say they aren't deities. Rosaries are mindless chants, but since the Bible forbids mindless chants, they declare the mindless chants to not be mindless chants, and if you question them, they point to something someone with zero authority said on the matter, often 1200+ years ago, rather than make the case or question their own position.
Were they seeking Him, or were they seeking food or something else? They weren't interested in Him, so they left, and He let them go.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:51 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
You see this a lot, and that's the problem I have with people who are obsessed with the cutlery, the candles, the napkins, the plates, the side dishes, the condiments... and no interest in the main course.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The woman at the well is a good example of this. Jesus tells her that He offers water that will provide eternal satisfaction and the woman thinks He's talking about actual water. Instead of clarifying, He tells her about her husbands, to both convict her of her sin as well as to prove His deity.
Incorrect. He does clarify:
quote:
11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
Also...this is hardly analagous to John 6. He is merely being metaphorical here like he usually is. The Samaritan woman had never heard him speak before and thus was understandably confused when he was speaking about living water. But it is clear he is being metaphorical.
In John 6, Jesus starts out being metaphorical when he calls himself the bread of life. It's when he starts saying that this bread was his flesh and that it was food to eat that everyone started going haywire with what he was saying. It'd be like him saying, "Amen I say to you, I am the light of the world. For my eyeball is bio-luminescent and can be extracted to light the way for those seeking eternal life."
Posted on 12/31/22 at 5:33 pm to RollTide1987
quote:But He doesn't clarify. He further elaborates on His metaphor. He doesn't say, "what I mean by 'water' is that I forgive sins and grant eternal life through belief in me; I'm not talking about your thirst for literal water, but your thirst for eternal life". He just continues with His analogy of the water.
Incorrect. He does clarify:
This is shown in that the woman still doesn't get it after His elaboration. She still thinks He's talking about literal water to satisfy her bodily thirst.
I think you just showed how this story is entirely analogous to John 6.
quote:I believe it's clear Jesus was being metaphorical in John 6, especially given the context of that crowd being fed with the bread and fish right beforehand (from their perspective). They were wanting more food. Jesus acknowledges this in verse 26.
Also...this is hardly analagous to John 6. He is merely being metaphorical here like he usually is. The Samaritan woman had never heard him speak before and thus was understandably confused when he was speaking about living water. But it is clear he is being metaphorical.
Also, Jesus compares Himself to the mana from Heaven that was given to Moses and the people while in the wilderness. He was starting off with symbolism from the get-go and you think He was being literal with "cannibalism" that the people couldn't have even had until after Jesus' ascension and the church began, months or years later for some of them? I don't think so.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 5:46 pm to FooManChoo
I read your link.
His argument is that the Eucharist would be robbed of its significance since the Eucharist is made of the very same body that was given up in death and raised again. He speaks of nothing symbolic.
quote:
His argument was that if Jesus didn't have a physical body (as the heretics maintained), then the Eucharist would be emptied of it's significance since the elements symbolize Jesus' physical body and blood that the Gnostics denied He had.
His argument is that the Eucharist would be robbed of its significance since the Eucharist is made of the very same body that was given up in death and raised again. He speaks of nothing symbolic.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 5:54 pm to Godfather1
Benedict didn't have the charisma that some other recent Popes have had, but I give him credit for retiring when he realized he was failing. Other Popes have stayed in office long after they could be effective leaders of that very large organization. In those cases, anonymous minions would take over and the church would stagnate, at best.
Obviously he could not have known who would have been picked as his successor.
Obviously he could not have known who would have been picked as his successor.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 6:07 pm to MilwaukeeKosherDills
The Catholic hate in these threads is always funny to me.
What I don’t get is the poster who said Catholics like being comfortable and cushy. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Any Catholic who actually follows Church teaching is leading one of the more difficult lives, especially in today’s society.
Also most of the Catholic hate is from people who, I assume, have never stepped foot in a good, Jesus loving parish. Such is life.
What I don’t get is the poster who said Catholics like being comfortable and cushy. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Any Catholic who actually follows Church teaching is leading one of the more difficult lives, especially in today’s society.
Also most of the Catholic hate is from people who, I assume, have never stepped foot in a good, Jesus loving parish. Such is life.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 6:17 pm to Stitches
quote:He ties the significance of the reality of Jesus' physical body (in light of the Docetists that deny the real body of Jesus) to the sacrament.
His argument is that the Eucharist would be robbed of its significance since the Eucharist is made of the very same body that was given up in death and raised again. He speaks of nothing symbolic.
You have the onus to prove he was teaching a miraculous transformation of the elements into the literal body, especially since the same language he uses is used by Protestants that deny transubstantiation.
On the other hand, you've got quotes from other fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius using the terms "symbol" and "represent" when talking about the elements.
Here are a couple of quotes for you to think about:
“[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” -Athanasius
More importantly, here's a quote from Tertullian who was arguing against Marcion:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh”
Posted on 12/31/22 at 7:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” -Athanasius
Athanasius defended the Real Presence. In his Homily to Neophytes, Athanasius said “so long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. … But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine — and thus is His Body confected.”
Athanasius also defended apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, infallibility of ecumenical councils and the church itself (rather than sola scriptura), was against denominationalism, believed the Deuterocanonical texts to be scripture, Mary to have been forever virgin and sinless, and defended the papacy and the primacy of Rome.
quote:
More importantly, here's a quote from Tertullian who was arguing against Marcion:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh”
Yes, and if you read further in that particular document, you'll see that Tertullian makes clear that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine, which is the same language used in the CCC.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 10:34 pm to Zarkinletch416
Fact is, the Catholic Church has practices that are not biblical. That is a no go at this station.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 6:14 am to Blueprint
quote:
Fact is, the Catholic Church has practices that are not biblical. That is a no go at this station.
Please share.
Seperately, I know that the RCC (and Orthodox) do not condone or practice the heresy of sola scriptura...what do you believe Christians before the late 300s used for guidance and a source of Truth? How can the illiterate be saved in a purists view of sola scriptura? Are men pre-destined for illiteracy (in a manner which cooperates/allows for damning)?
This post was edited on 1/1/23 at 6:15 am
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News