|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 10, 2009 9:56:38 GMT -5
Yes, but Revelation is a book of Prophesy. Even in the New Testament we see that sometimes people knew exactly what would happen (for example, where the Messiah would be born) but other times, they didn't understand the Prophesy until after it happened, or while it happened. I don't think Rev. is meant to be taken literally, word for word. To be honest, most Catholics are not preoccupied with "end times" anyway, because the sequence of events doesn't change how we are to live our lives. We are to live for God today and not worry about the future. Most of the Church Fathers (but not all) were Amillennialist, so it should be no surprise that most Catholics are. The Catholic Church does not make definitive statements about every conceivable point of doctrine-- Anyway, I would like to get back to discussing the foundation of our faith. If you realize first that the Catholic Church is built on a solid foundation, then this will make more sense to you. peace teresa Hey T, Do you think it's "all prophecy"? It's been shown that much of what John is describing were present tense events (Nero being the beast, Jeruselum being the Whore of Babylon because she was "in bed" with Rome at the time and worked to wipe out Christianity, etc...). Thought? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 10, 2009 23:49:50 GMT -5
You have forgotten the week long debate we had about whether or not the resurrection was an actually resurrection of men in actual physical bodies or not? I took the position that people will be resurrected into physical bodies, and you took the position that they will not. Remember we were going to go through 1st Corinthians 15 verse by verse but you decided not to? It totally got by me. Maybe I was in "smart donkey" mode where I sometimes say something I don't mean and then run with it. Let me see if I can find that thread. Let me see what I said.  You erased the thread, you erased all my posts when you banned me. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 10, 2009 23:51:57 GMT -5
watchman, I can see you are really into the "end times" stuff. Honestly, I don't know much about it, and was so confused by all of the different theories when I was a Protestant that I guess I sort of lost interest in trying to figure it all out. Not that I don't think those things are important, but I tend to focus on the "here and now". That is just me. I'm sure there are plenty of other Catholics that would love to talk about the end times with you, but I'm not one of them. Sorry! (Notice how I tried to change the subject last time. hehe) So, um...hum........ How about those Mets? teresa One thing that I respect about certain Protestants when it comes to these beliefs is that they have it down. They can provide a set of supporting beliefs and scriptures and theories which to me is far superior than those (both Cats & Prots) who just believe because their "church" says so. Understand? I can definitely respect why someone believes what they believe whether or not I agree or disagree with their beliefs. It certainly is refreshing to discuss things with them because they are usually very comfortable with their beliefs where those who can't explain why they believe what they believe turn into an insult machine. They can't explain their own beliefs so the resort to tearing down others as if this automatically justifies their beliefs. I don't care if a person is Muslim, Prot, Cat, Mormon...whatever. It certainly is impressive to me when a person can explain their beliefs. I will take that as a complement, much appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 12, 2009 11:22:08 GMT -5
It totally got by me. Maybe I was in "smart donkey" mode where I sometimes say something I don't mean and then run with it. Let me see if I can find that thread. Let me see what I said. You erased the thread, you erased all my posts when you banned me. Oh, OK. I do that because sometimes people keep responding to threads that the original poster can't respond back to and it's not fair for them to be questioned without them having a say in it. Sorry, but it was the fair thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 12, 2009 11:24:03 GMT -5
One thing that I respect about certain Protestants when it comes to these beliefs is that they have it down. They can provide a set of supporting beliefs and scriptures and theories which to me is far superior than those (both Cats & Prots) who just believe because their "church" says so. Understand? I can definitely respect why someone believes what they believe whether or not I agree or disagree with their beliefs. It certainly is refreshing to discuss things with them because they are usually very comfortable with their beliefs where those who can't explain why they believe what they believe turn into an insult machine. They can't explain their own beliefs so the resort to tearing down others as if this automatically justifies their beliefs. I don't care if a person is Muslim, Prot, Cat, Mormon...whatever. It certainly is impressive to me when a person can explain their beliefs. I will take that as a complement, much appreciated. You are very welcome sir. And I mean every word of it. I can always respect a person that can reason why they believe what they believe even if we personally differ so long as there is common respect. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 12, 2009 12:31:30 GMT -5
You erased the thread, you erased all my posts when you banned me. Oh, OK. I do that because sometimes people keep responding to threads that the original poster can't respond back to and it's not fair for them to be questioned without them having a say in it. Sorry, but it was the fair thing to do. Water under the bridge ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 12, 2009 12:38:56 GMT -5
Oh, OK. I do that because sometimes people keep responding to threads that the original poster can't respond back to and it's not fair for them to be questioned without them having a say in it. Sorry, but it was the fair thing to do. Water under the bridge ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jan 17, 2009 13:16:42 GMT -5
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In the New Testament.
In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." (JewishEncyclopedia.com) In Judaism, binding and loosing has long been understood to be a legal designation. During the days of Jesus, these antonyms were used to describe certain religious decisions. The term bind meant to forbid, and loose meant to permit. There are numerous examples of this in rabbinical literature.
Acceptable and Not Acceptable
To understand this, we must know that first century rabbis were constantly called upon by their communities to interpret scriptural commands. For example, the Bible forbids working on the Sabbath but does not define what specific activities constitute work. As a result, the rabbis ruled as to which activities were permitted on the Sabbath and which were not. They bound or prohibited certain activities and loosed or allowed others.
Peter was given the keys, or the authority, to bind and loose concerning scriptural questions with the early Church. An example of this practice can be found in Acts 15, during the controversy over whether or not Gentiles should be admitted into the fellowship without first being circumcised.
After the apostles and elders convened in Jerusalem, Peter showed an example of loosing when he ruled that both Jews and Gentiles were part of Gods covenant. (Acts 15:9) Then James, the pastor of the Church at Jerusalem, gave an example of binding when he required the believing Gentiles to abstain from the four characteristic practices of the pagans (Acts 15:1320).www.rbooker.com/html/binding_and_loosing.html(Institute for Hebraic - Christian Studies) For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for "deo" and "luo" (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew 16:19 and elsewhere), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
A. T. Robertson, one of this century's leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To `bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to `loose' is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel `loosed' many things that the school of Schammai `bound.' The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative..., a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ." 2 Dr. Robertson's comment about the use of the future perfect tense is important. If we were to translate the passage very literally (though awkwardly in English), it would read "...whatever you loose on earth shall having been loosed in heaven." This shows that the disciples were not unilaterally to decide a matter, thus binding "heaven" to their decision. It means that their decision, as Dr. Robertson suggests, will be in line with what already was God's mind on the issue.
Passing on an issue of doctrine or ethics does not equal shooting a verbal barrage at Satan or another wicked spiritual entity. It is also quite different from "loosing" the money needed or the job wanted, as some are now prone to pray.
We can see how Peter and the others understood Jesus' teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? After "much debate" (Acts 15:7), Peter stood up and asked, "...why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Verse 10). After James agrees with Peter, quoting Scripture as proof, they reached the decision that the Gentiles should abstain from idols, fornication, and what is strangled. No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus.www.inplainsite.org/html/binding_and_loosing.html |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jan 17, 2009 13:27:00 GMT -5
Watchman, do you realize that you changed the Commandments also? You shortened them and summarized them. Here is the English Translation of the 10 Commandments: The Ten Commandments 1Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3"You shall have no other gods before Me.
4"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9"Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
13"You shall not murder.
14"You shall not commit adultery.
15"You shall not steal.
16"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
(NASB) |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 17, 2009 17:09:30 GMT -5
Watchman, do you realize that you changed the Commandments also? So you admit that Catholicism changed God's commandments? |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jan 18, 2009 14:54:51 GMT -5
NO
I'm saying you seemed to be accusing the Catholic Church of changing them when the reality is you are looking only at YOUR summary-list of the Commandments vs. OUR summary-list of the Commandments. When both of us print the Commandments IN THEIR ENTIRETY, Guess What? They are the same. (depending on the translation)
The only way to completely and accurately print the Commandments is to do it in the original Hebrew and print them completely--not a summary.
I guess what I'm saying is (in the words of Eric Clapton) "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"
hehe
Anyway, Watchman I'm wondering if you are a "Sola Scriptura" person? And what do you think about the "Binding and Loosing" stuff?
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 18, 2009 23:55:48 GMT -5
I am sola scripture and I believe as the Holy Spirit leads me, as far as the binding and loosing, I believe that is you bind something in the name of Jesus God will ind it, and if you loose it (such as joy or peace) God will loose it. What is you take on the binding and loosing.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jan 23, 2009 14:41:43 GMT -5
I already posted my take on it.
I don't think we need to "loose" peace and joy, etc. They are fruit of the Holy Spirit. Nothing prevents these gifts but our own disobedience.
"Bind" and "Loose" are very specific rabbinical terms that apply to Apostolic authority and the role of the Church. It relates to how we as Christians are to live. The first Church council in Acts is a very good example of "Binding and loosing". The Apostles decided that the Gentiles were "bound" to follow some simple laws: sexual immorality, strangled animals (?) and blood. Though they were (as St. Paul later reiterates) loosed from many other Judaic laws such as circumcision.
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 23, 2009 17:45:27 GMT -5
I already posted my take on it. I don't think we need to "loose" peace and joy, etc. They are fruit of the Holy Spirit. Nothing prevents these gifts but our own disobedience. "Bind" and "Loose" are very specific rabbinical terms that apply to Apostolic authority and the role of the Church. It relates to how we as Christians are to live. The first Church council in Acts is a very good example of "Binding and loosing". The Apostles decided that the Gentiles were "bound" to follow some simple laws: sexual immorality, strangled animals (?) and blood. Though they were (as St. Paul later reiterates) loosed from many other Judaic laws such as circumcision. peace teresa I got no problem with your take on it. My question would what is the point of bringing it up or where is this idea heading to. Just so you know The Catholic Church hold no authority over me and cannot bind or loose anything into or out of my life. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jan 24, 2009 13:07:06 GMT -5
I don't have a place I'm going with it, I just wanted to talk about it.
You said that the "Catholic Church" has no authority over you. I'm wondering if you took out the word "Catholic" would you still make the same statement?
"The Church hold(s) no authority over me and cannot bind or loose anything into or out of my life"
The reason I ask is that you said you believe in "Sola Scriptura". Yet the Holy Scriptures tell us to submit to the Church, and that the Church does have authority for Christians. It isn't either-or. You can have the authority of the Church and the authority of Scripture. Even the Bible say that some things in scripture are "hard to understand".
It is also a fact that "Sola Scriptura" was an innovation of the Reformation and never taught by Jesus, the Apostles or the Early Church.
History has shown that "Sola Scriptura" = divisions, factions and confusion. That is the fruit of Sola Scriptura. How then, can it be God's will for His people?
You know, I used to be somewhat irritated by the concept of "the Church". I thought that the Church was just something to be put up with until we get to heaven. I never really knew who to believe (insofar as Bible interpretation and doctrine). I just hoped that I was right about my view on "Once saved, always saved" and other issues, and I never really had fond sentiments about what I saw as being the Church here on Earth.
Since I became Catholic, I have a totally different concept of what "the Church" means. The Church is really, truly Christ's body and bride. The Church is glorious and not something to put up with. I now understand "the Communion of Saints" and the fact that we are truly surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. We are one body in Christ. There is one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism. Those things make sense now. I no longer am frustrated by "the Church" but now find great comfort, joy and rest in the Church, Christ's body.
We don't believe that only Catholics are part of the Church, nor do we believe that all Catholics are part of the Church. But we do acknowledge that as far as the teachings and doctrines of the Church, there can only be one because truth cannot contradict itself.
Either Jesus built His Church on Peter and the Apostles, on which the gates of Hell have not prevailed, or He didn't. I believe that He did build His Church, and it has been built on united, continual, uninterrupted truth.
peace
Teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jan 24, 2009 14:19:58 GMT -5
I don't have a place I'm going with it, I just wanted to talk about it. You said that the "Catholic Church" has no authority over you. I'm wondering if you took out the word "Catholic" would you still make the same statement? "The Church hold(s) no authority over me and cannot bind or loose anything into or out of my life"The reason I ask is that you said you believe in "Sola Scriptura". Yet the Holy Scriptures tell us to submit to the Church, and that the Church does have authority for Christians. It isn't either-or. You can have the authority of the Church and the authority of Scripture. Even the Bible say that some things in scripture are "hard to understand". It is also a fact that "Sola Scriptura" was an innovation of the Reformation and never taught by Jesus, the Apostles or the Early Church. History has shown that "Sola Scriptura" = divisions, factions and confusion. That is the fruit of Sola Scriptura. How then, can it be God's will for His people? You know, I used to be somewhat irritated by the concept of "the Church". I thought that the Church was just something to be put up with until we get to heaven. I never really knew who to believe (insofar as Bible interpretation and doctrine). I just hoped that I was right about my view on "Once saved, always saved" and other issues, and I never really had fond sentiments about what I saw as being the Church here on Earth. Since I became Catholic, I have a totally different concept of what "the Church" means. The Church is really, truly Christ's body and bride. The Church is glorious and not something to put up with. I now understand "the Communion of Saints" and the fact that we are truly surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. We are one body in Christ. There is one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism. Those things make sense now. I no longer am frustrated by "the Church" but now find great comfort, joy and rest in the Church, Christ's body. We don't believe that only Catholics are part of the Church, nor do we believe that all Catholics are part of the Church. But we do acknowledge that as far as the teachings and doctrines of the Church, there can only be one because truth cannot contradict itself. Either Jesus built His Church on Peter and the Apostles, on which the gates of Hell have not prevailed, or He didn't. I believe that He did build His Church, and it has been built on united, continual, uninterrupted truth. peace Teresa Being that he's a "denominational" Christian, he submits his will to those who have indoctrinated him to believe what he believes (provided that he does belong to a "church"...even if he is a non-denominational Christian, that still places him in the literal denomination of "non-denominationalism"). And he's right. One has to "believe" in The Church to submit his will to it. The Universal Christian Church does not have authority over him. Only whatever church he gives that authority to. Is that about right WMan? |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jan 25, 2009 13:50:50 GMT -5
Dude, that was a bit snappy don't you think?  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 25, 2009 15:01:52 GMT -5
I don't have a place I'm going with it, I just wanted to talk about it. You said that the "Catholic Church" has no authority over you. I'm wondering if you took out the word "Catholic" would you still make the same statement? "The Church hold(s) no authority over me and cannot bind or loose anything into or out of my life"The reason I ask is that you said you believe in "Sola Scriptura". Yet the Holy Scriptures tell us to submit to the Church, and that the Church does have authority for Christians. It isn't either-or. You can have the authority of the Church and the authority of Scripture. Even the Bible say that some things in scripture are "hard to understand". It is also a fact that "Sola Scriptura" was an innovation of the Reformation and never taught by Jesus, the Apostles or the Early Church. History has shown that "Sola Scriptura" = divisions, factions and confusion. That is the fruit of Sola Scriptura. How then, can it be God's will for His people? You know, I used to be somewhat irritated by the concept of "the Church". I thought that the Church was just something to be put up with until we get to heaven. I never really knew who to believe (insofar as Bible interpretation and doctrine). I just hoped that I was right about my view on "Once saved, always saved" and other issues, and I never really had fond sentiments about what I saw as being the Church here on Earth. Since I became Catholic, I have a totally different concept of what "the Church" means. The Church is really, truly Christ's body and bride. The Church is glorious and not something to put up with. I now understand "the Communion of Saints" and the fact that we are truly surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. We are one body in Christ. There is one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism. Those things make sense now. I no longer am frustrated by "the Church" but now find great comfort, joy and rest in the Church, Christ's body. We don't believe that only Catholics are part of the Church, nor do we believe that all Catholics are part of the Church. But we do acknowledge that as far as the teachings and doctrines of the Church, there can only be one because truth cannot contradict itself. Either Jesus built His Church on Peter and the Apostles, on which the gates of Hell have not prevailed, or He didn't. I believe that He did build His Church, and it has been built on united, continual, uninterrupted truth. peace Teresa Being that he's a "denominational" Christian, he submits his will to those who have indoctrinated him to believe what he believes (provided that he does belong to a "church"...even if he is a non-denominational Christian, that still places him in the literal denomination of "non-denominationalism"). And he's right. One has to "believe" in The Church to submit his will to it. The Universal Christian Church does not have authority over him. Only whatever church he gives that authority to. Is that about right WMan? Almost cepha, although I do go to a denominational church I am not a part of that denomination. Therefore the denomination itself holds no authority over me either. I do however submit myself to the Pastor of my church, but only to an extent. If he were to get out of line with God's word I would have to keep myself inline with what God has said, and not submit to the pastors word. By the way teresa, show me the verse that says we must submit to the church? |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jan 25, 2009 18:39:39 GMT -5
15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 18
11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. 1 Corinthians 5
15For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and [d]your love for all the saints,
16do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers;
17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.
18I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
19and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might
20which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
22And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,
23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Ephesians 1
The verse from Ephesians is especially beautiful. Read it carefully. The Church is the body of Christ. If we don't submit to his body, how can we say we are submitting to Christ? That makes no sense.
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 25, 2009 23:08:05 GMT -5
Sorry I do not see any commandment to submit to the church in any of these passages, especially to the church of a religion I do not subscribe to.
|
|
