|
|
Post by watchman on May 5, 2009 13:33:02 GMT -5
Cepha- you refer back to the "early Christians" a lot...what makes you sure the early Christians in the Catholic church were doing things right? The early Christians were not members of the RCC, there was not RCC at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 5, 2009 14:03:16 GMT -5
watchman- I was just curious as to why cepha thinks that since they did something, it's automatically right.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 5, 2009 16:04:24 GMT -5
I don't hate Catholics. I just don't believe in some of the doctrine their church teaches so they shouldn't take it personally when I or other Evangelicals criticize them.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 5, 2009 16:07:48 GMT -5
Alfie- I try my darndest not to critize them. No matter how much I disagree with their church.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 5, 2009 16:12:13 GMT -5
watchman- I was just curious as to why cepha thinks that since they did something, it's automatically right. I don't think most Catholics are being honest about historical facts, but I shouldn't get upset over it because they are acountable before God if they don't tell the truth. It's like the Japanese they deny what they did to China during WW11.Also they don't teach their children the truth in school so they are ignorant of their history. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 5, 2009 16:13:33 GMT -5
Alfie- I try my darndest not to critize them. No matter how much I disagree with their church. I wish I could be more like you. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 5, 2009 16:40:39 GMT -5
I wish I could be more like you. Just look at it this way...for most of them, it's not their fault. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 5, 2009 17:56:14 GMT -5
watchman- I was just curious as to why cepha thinks that since they did something, it's automatically right. I don't think most Catholics are being honest about historical facts, but I shouldn't get upset over it because they are acountable before God if they don't tell the truth. It's like the Japanese they deny what they did to China during WW11.Also they don't teach their children the truth in school so they are ignorant of their history. I agree they deny the history they do not like (or deflect it to others) and create history to support the false teaching of the RCC being the Apostolic church and Peter being the pope ect.... and then act like it is crazy when people do not accept what they claim to be true. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 5, 2009 19:36:47 GMT -5
I don't think most Catholics are being honest about historical facts, but I shouldn't get upset over it because they are acountable before God if they don't tell the truth. It's like the Japanese they deny what they did to China during WW11.Also they don't teach their children the truth in school so they are ignorant of their history. I agree they deny the history they do not like (or deflect it to others) and create history to support the false teaching of the RCC being the Apostolic church and Peter being the pope ect.... and then act like it is crazy when people do not accept what they claim to be true. Please educate me on the Factual History of The Church. With reliable sources. Im open minded to most things. As you can tell, cepha and i disagree on politics badly. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 6, 2009 9:11:56 GMT -5
Not always. Take the concept of hell. YOU have to decide if the given passages that talk about hell are figuratively or literally, but Scriptures doesn't tell you which way to go. In IC.XC, Ramon Of course it does. Hell is real and if you do not believe it is real then you simply do not believe the Bible and for some reason must think Jesus is a liar. Jesus tells us the goats will burn with the demons. There is no reason to doubt that He meant exactly what He said. Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:This is obviously referring to the lake of fire but I assume this is what you meant by Hell. Of course I believe in Hell. But you missing the point. The problem is that one cannot arrive at a figurative interpretation unless one make non-biblical arguments. Interpreting a passage figuratively would have to go against the above logic because Scriptures itself would not be able to tell if you should take "Scripture A" figuratively. Let's take the topic of hell. Scriptures picture it at a place (or state?) of fire and brimstone, where worms dieth not, a "outer darkness". But how does one decide whether or not these passages are figuratively or literally? You can't just say "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" because Scriptures doesn't tell you whether or not to take these passages in a figurative manner or literally. Ultimately, the decision depends on the person reading these passages. That person would have to interpret these passages! The underlining problem is that Scriptures can not read itself. People interpret Scriptures. One could easily interpret the above passages as figuratively instead of literally. You do not interpret figuratively because that is your choice, but the option is open. Taking a passage figuratively is your personal interpretation of the text. Scriptures doesn't tell you to take "Text A" figuratively and not literally, any less than it tell you that one must take every Scripture literally until it tell you otherwise. There is no reason to doubt that He meant exactly what He said. Jesus also made other statements, such as unless one eats the the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, he has no life in them (John 6). When he instituted the Holy Eucharist, he told the disciples, "This IS my Body", "This IS Blood". Who are we to say that he didn't mean what he said? You don't, but the Early Church (1st-10th Century) did. There is no reason to doubt that he meant exactly what he said. They believe exactly what the Holy Apostles (1 Cor 10:16) taught, that the Bread and Wine, after the invocation becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, in a unexplained manner. So you say Jesus meant exactly what he said (on issues that agree with your view) but then say he was speaking figuratively when it doesn't agree with your view. Why is that? The bottom line is that you DO interpret Scriptures. You have interpreted the above sayings of Jesus figuratively, even though Scriptures doesn't tell you to take those words figuratively. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 6, 2009 9:16:38 GMT -5
There are 1500 church fathers and they don't agree on everthing so how do you decide which of their doctrines you should follow? When the Fathers agree, this is what we follow. When the Fathers disagree, the Church decides, through the Holy Spirit, which way to go. The Fathers did agree on many issues that Protestants today disagree on (Such as the Eucharist, Baptism, and the other Holy Sacraments, etc). Occasionally, the Fathers may have a opinion that is not shared by the whole Church, but the Church decides if those opinions are pious opinions that can be believed by her members. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 9:24:06 GMT -5
Cepha- you refer back to the "early Christians" a lot...what makes you sure the early Christians in the Catholic church were doing things right? The early Christians were not members of the RCC, there was not RCC at the time. Let's see, The Church was headquartered in Rome. That's factual. The Church was universal. That's factual. The Church was called "The Catholic Church" by The Early Christians. That's factual. The Early Christian Church had the same aspects that only today's Catholic Church has (The Papacy, The Sacraments, etc...). That's factual. Ok.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 9:24:58 GMT -5
The early Christians were not members of the RCC, there was not RCC at the time. Do you still accept Ireneaus as a Church Father that tells the truth? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 9:27:10 GMT -5
watchman- I was just curious as to why cepha thinks that since they did something, it's automatically right. Because The Church is infallible on matters of faith. Jesus promised it this. And because The Holy Spirit is guiding it (as it was given in The Book of Acts to The Universal (aka "Catholic") Church, it is incapable of teaching falsely. No one has ever proven that The Catholic Church is false. No one. People "believe" that it is, but they haven't proven it. When asked for proof, they just return with "it is" and that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 9:30:04 GMT -5
Why hasn't anybody posted any proof that the Church is not what I posted?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 10:25:07 GMT -5
I don't hate Catholics. I just don't believe in some of the doctrine their church teaches so they shouldn't take it personally when I or other Evangelicals criticize them. Fair enough. Which doctrines would those be and what is your evidence that they are wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 10:28:06 GMT -5
Alfie- I try my darndest not to critize them. No matter how much I disagree with their church. I think "constructive" criticism is fine provided that it's backed up with facts. However, insults, unsupported allegations, name calling, those things are all wrong. But no devout Catholic is opposed to defending their faith in The Church. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 10:29:12 GMT -5
watchman- I was just curious as to why cepha thinks that since they did something, it's automatically right. I don't think most Catholics are being honest about historical facts, but I shouldn't get upset over it because they are acountable before God if they don't tell the truth. It's like the Japanese they deny what they did to China during WW11.Also they don't teach their children the truth in school so they are ignorant of their history. Well, by all means...show is "which" historical facts we are dishonest about? That's what this thread is for...for those who beleive we're wrong to prove it using historical facts instead of just talking about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 10:30:51 GMT -5
Alfie- I try my darndest not to critize them. No matter how much I disagree with their church. I wish I could be more like you. Yep...Em is even teaching "me" how to be more charitable. Anyway, just follow the bible and you'll see how Jesus told us to not try to stop those who aren't in The Church (even if you think you're in His Church) from praising and loving and exhorting him. I think it's in Mark. In fact, no Christian should interfere with another Christian's faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 6, 2009 10:40:45 GMT -5
I agree they deny the history they do not like (or deflect it to others) and create history to support the false teaching of the RCC being the Apostolic church and Peter being the pope ect.... and then act like it is crazy when people do not accept what they claim to be true. Give me a break watchman. You have claimed over and over that Saint Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome, despite the historical proofs that been given here. Please, watchman, give us historical proofs that contradicts what Scholars/Historians, such as Philip Schaff, said concerning Saint Peter's Bishopric in Rome, the Apostolic status of the Roman Church, etc. What historical evidence are me, Cepha, and others are being dishonest about? Since day one you have not provided any reliable source to back up your claims (that Saint Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome, Catholicism started int he 4th Century, etc). All we are during are providing sources that say otherwise, while you have not given one source to support your bias opinions. Please enlighten us Watchman. Give unbiased, reliable historical source that disagree with us. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
